Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Race Relations

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the first annual report of the Race Relations Board;

(2) whether he has considered the evidence of racial discrimination in housing, in employment, in financial facilities and in public places not covered by the recent Act, particularly that contained in the recent Political and Economic Planning Report, which is in his possession; and what action he now proposes to take.

Mr. Marquand: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now introduce legislation to amend the Race Relations Act, in the light of the recent survey on racial discrimination carried out by Political and Economic Planning, a copy of which is in his possession.

Mr. Rose: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of recent reports and surveys, he will now seek to amend the Race Relations Act.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation designed to deal with colour discrimination in employment and housing.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the position described in the recent Political and Economic Planning Report, a copy of which is in his possession, he will introduce legislation to

combat racial discrimination in employment, housing and motor insurance.

Mr. Rowland: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects to receive the annual report of the Race Relations Board; and if he will make a statement;

(2) if, in the light of the evidence contained in the recently published Report by Political and Economic Planning entitled Racial Discrimination, a copy of which has been sent to him, he will give consideration to the introduction of legislation strengthening the law against racial discrimination.

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the light of the recent findings of the Political and Economic Planning Report, a copy of which has been sent to him, he will now take steps to amend the Race Relations Act, 1965, to cover the fields of housing, employment and insurance.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): The Report of the Race Relations Board was laid before the House today. The Government are now studying this Report and the P.E.P. Report on Racial Discrimination published earlier this month; and, in the light of these two valuable and comprehensive Reports and other available evidence, will consider the need for and practicability of strengthening the existing Race Relations Act and administrative machinery.

Sir G. Sinclair: I welcome that statement and join in the appreciation of the Report of the Race Relations Board. When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to have the report of the Street Committee, and does he hope to bring legislation to extend the scope of the Race Relations Act before the House during the life of this Parliament?

Mr. Jenkins: I cannot offhand tell the hon. Gentleman when I shall have the report of the Street Committee, but I shall discover this and write to him about it, If I may. If the view were taken that it was right and practicable to have strengthening legislation, I would certainly hope that it would be done well within the lifetime of this Parliament.

Mr. Marquand: I accept that my right hon Friend cannot at this stage say


whether legislation will be introduced, but will he at least concede that the evidence in the P.E.P. survey shows a serious state of racial discrimination in this country, worse than any of us have realised? It is difficult to see how it can be dealt with without strengthening the Act.

Mr. Jenkins: I regard this as a formidable body of evidence, which I have studied with close attention and interest, and I am sure that the Government as a whole are doing the same.

Mr. Rose: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the P.E.P. Report shows that discrimination will become more significant and serious as the children of immigrants acquire higher qualifications? Will he, therefore, resist all pressures, from whatever source, against such legislation and introduce into the House at the beginning of the next Session amendments which would cover housing, employment and financial discrimination?

Mr. Jenkins: I have expressed the view on previous occasions that, while there is a great problem as regards first generation immigrants, the problem, particularly in so far as it affects employment, will become still more acute and challenging when we have large numbers of second generation immigrants in this country.

Mr. Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is wrong to allow a state of affairs to continue in which people are penalised in our country because of the colour of their skin? Has my right hon. Friend seen the Motion signed by 142 Labour and Liberal Members calling for extension of the Act?

Mr. Jenkins: I have seen the Motion in the names of my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members, and I agree with him, as, I am sure, does every—or nearly every Member of the House that discrimination based upon the colour of skin is entirely intolerable and unacceptable.

Mr. Fisher: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever may be people's views on immigration, which, of course, vary, all migrants who are already here should be treated with complete equality and that, as this does not happen or does not seem to happen at the moment without legal sanctions, there is a powerful argument for legislation?

Mr. Jenkins: I agree that, if we were to allow a situation to build up in which we had first- and second-class citizens in this country, we should be storing up more trouble for ourselves and for future generations.

Mr. Rowland: As we have now shown ourselves to be as prone to colour prejudice as the United States, will my right hon. Friend say what official action is being taken by his Department to study the lessons of experience in the United States and the desirable effects of legislation in that country?

Mr. Jenkins: I have myself endeavoured to keep in fairly close touch with what has been done there. The chairman of the Race Relations Board paid a fairly extended visit during the autumn of last year and produced a report. I shall consider whether it might be useful to put that report in the Library.

Mr. Hunt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us, including a number of hon. Members on this side, feel that only the extension of legislation can now set a national example and give the moral lead which is so urgently required? In the meantime, what is the Home Secretary doing to overcome the alarming complacency of both the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. in matters of racial discrimination?

Mr. Jenkins: Consultation with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. is in the first place necessarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who is in touch with them, and I shall probably have some meetings myself in which we can discuss this whole issue. I take note of the hon. Gentleman's statement of view at the beginning of his supplementary question, which, I know, represents the broad view of right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Sharpies: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, while I think that the whole House deplores any form of racial discrimination, many of the defects in the Race Relations Act were pointed out by Members on both sides during its passage? Will he also accept that while we shall wish to examine constructively any proposals he puts before us the real solution to the problem must eventually


lie in the realms of education and understanding?

Mr. Jenkins: I am not sure that it is very constructive or helpful to go into what happened on the various stages of the Race Relations Act. I shall bear in mind a at whatever proposals we may feel able to make will be examined constructively by the hon. Gentleman, and I take note of his point that education and what happens in the minds of people are important, but we must have regard to the framework as well as what happens in the minds of individuals.

Motoring Offences (Fixed Penalty Procedure)

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation, while always preserving the right of appeal, to authorise the police to fine an offender who pleads guilty to minor motoring offences by ticket on the spot.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): My right hon. Friend is considering with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport the possibility of extending the offences to which the fixed penalty or "ticket" procedure is applicable.

Mr. Longden: I thank the Minister for that reply, but would not an extension such as is suggested, always assuming that the offenders agreed, save both them and the police many hours of hanging about courts?

Mr. Taverne: I think that I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and certainly it was one of the recommendations of the Police Advisory Board recently that the extension of the use of traffic wardens should be matched by the extension of the fixed-penalty procedure.

Illegally Parked Cars (Removal)

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the consultations about entrusting the duty of removing illegally parked cars to a separate corps, which he informed the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire en 3rd August, 1964, and 16th December, 1965, he was holding with the police, have been concluded; and, if so, with what results.

Mr. Taverne: Since the Questions asked by the hon. Gentleman in 1965, it is now accepted policy that civilians should be employed on duties for which the special training and attributes of police officers are not required, and my right hon. Friend has commended this course to chief officers of police and to police authorities in England and Wales.

Mr. Longden: I welcome that reply and thank the Minister for it, but surely it would be better to form a separate corps of traffic police from older, though still sprightly, men, who could relieve the regular police from their greater task of fighting crime?

Mr. Taverne: I do not think that the hon. Member and the Home Office are at one on this point, because the question of a separate police traffic corps was considered by the Police Advisory Board and was turned down. Questions of the use of facilities, competition for resources and overlapping of different functions all come into this problem.

Local Authorities (Casinos)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the introduction of legislation to allow local authorities to run casinos subject to local option as a means of providing local finance and a means of giving effective control of casinos.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: This matter is included in my review of the gaming laws, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Could the right hon. Gentleman keep this constantly under review? Would he agree that this suggestion has the support of the vast majority of the people of this country today?

Mr. Jenkins: I am not sure that I could agree with the latter part of the question, because I am not sure on what the hon. Gentleman bases it, but I shall keep it in mind.

Mr. Sharpies: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is not now his intention to introduce legislation on gambling in the present Session of Parliament?

Mr. Jenkins: It looks as though it will be more practicable to introduce it early in the next Session.

Shrewsbury Prison

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as the present position of Shrewsbury Prison is offensive to the eye, obstructs the proper development of the central part of the town which it now occupies and contravenes every principle in the siting of prisons, why he has at present no plans to move the prison.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I regret that prisons are so seriously overcrowded that, for the present, priority must be given to increasing rather than replacing accommodation.

Metropolitan Police (Recruitment)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give figures for police recruitment for the Metropolitan area over the past two years.

Mr. Taverne: The figures are 1,214 men and 100 women in 1965, and 1,374 men and 96 women in 1966.

Mr. Molloy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being able to announce those figures. In so far as many of our British Commonwealth citizens resident in this country have made massive contributions to our State services, particularly in the hospital services, might they not now be encouraged to assist in the services of the police, enhance their own dignity and earn the community's appreciation?

Mr. Taverne: I assure my hon. Friend that it is certainly the Government's policy to encourage coloured recruits for the police to come forward, provided they are up to the required standards.

British Summer Time

Dr. Winstanley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now introduce the necessary legislation to retain British Summer Time, Mid-European Time, all the year round.

Mr. Jenkins: My review of this matter is progressing well, and I hope to be able to make a statement to the House before the Summer Recess.

Dr. Winstanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer will

have raised the hopes of people engaged in business and commerce with Europe, farmers who resent a bi-annual disruption of their routine and sundry other citizens? Will he keep us in suspense for as short a period as possible?

Mr. Jenkins: For as short a period as possible, but it is necessary to take fairly detailed soundings on the matter, We have issued questionnaires to a great number of institutions concerned and wish to study the results. The indications are that there has been a substantial swing of opinion since 1960.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that American businessmen seem to prosper very well with three time belts and that there would be much more opposition than is perhaps realised to any proposal to introduce Mid-European Time into Britain?

Mr. Jenkins: I am aware that there would be some opposition and that is why I am trying to sound opinion. But I very much doubt whether one should deduce from the fact that a continent 3,000 miles wide must have three time belts that that should apply to this island.

Gallery Owners and Painters (Prosecution)

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to prevent gallery owners and painters from being prosecuted concerning their pictures except where they can call expert witnesses and claim a jury trial.

Mr. Jenkins: There is already a right to call expert witnesses in all proceedings under the Obscene Publications Act, and to jury trial in all proceedings under Section 2 of the Act. My hon. Friend may have in mind prosecutions under the Vagrancy Acts in respect of indecent exhibitions; I am keeping closely in mind the need for review of these Vagrancy Acts.

Mr. Whitaker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must be continually vigilant to protect artistic freedom from interference? Have there not been several recent very disturbing instances of prosecutions of painters under the Vagrancy Acts? Does not the present anomalous law lay, for example, the National


Gallery open to prosecution on the grounds of exhibiting nudes by Renoir, Rubens and Cranach?

Mr. Jenkins: I hope that that is not likely to arise. There are certain archaic sms and anomalies relating to the Vagrancy Acts, and I shall keep the matter under close review.

London Fire Service

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the members of the London Fire Service is coloured; and by how many members the service is below strength.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): Recruitment is a matter for the individual fire authorities who have been asked that every suitable coloured applicant should be given the opportunity of joining the fire service, but so far there have been very few applications from coloured people. I understand that there are three coloured members of the London Fire Brigade, which is less than 0·1 per cent. of the strength. On 31st December, 1966, the brigade strength was 1,619 below the establishment of 6,487.

Mr. Whitaker: Are not these figures very disturbing? Would not my hon. Friend agree that even the most racially-prejudiced person cannot object to having his life saved by a coloured person, particularly in a cloud of smoke?

Mr. Ennals: I assure my hon. Friend that racial prejudice does not come into this. Fire brigades are very anxious to have coloured applicants. I have spoken to the Chief Officer of the London Fire Brigade, and he would welcome more applicants. At present very few men are coming forward.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be called before he speaks. Mr. Goodhew.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that inverted racialism is just as obnoxious as racialism, even in Hampstead?

Mr. Ennals: I shall not comment on Hampstead. In choosing, we must main-

tain a standard, whether a man is white or brown, or whatever his colour is.

Police Recruits (Colour Blindness)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many otherwise suitable recruits were rejected from joining the police force because of colour blindness in the latest year for which figures are available; and what study he has made of this problem in relation to police recruitment.

Mr. Taverne: Annual statistics for England and Wales of applicants rejected for this reason are not available but the figure for the Metropolitan Police for the first three months of this year was less than 1 per cent. The Police Advisory Board Working Party on Manpower last year considered the minimum medical standards for recruits to the police service but made no recommendation about colour blindness.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that some of the applicants who have been rejected because of colour blindness are beginning to have doubts about it? I have experienced some of that, and I am beginning to have doubts as well.

Mr. Taverne: I understand that my hon. Friend was concerned with two Scottish cases, which are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. But one of those cases, I think, concerned the question of whether someone could distinguish red and green in all lights, and it is rather important for a traffic policeman to know the difference between red and green.

Football Grounds (Violence and Hooliganism)

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will call a conference of Football League clubs to discuss ways of combating violence and hooliganism on football grounds.

Mr. Taverne: I doubt whether a conference would serve any useful purpose. It is well understood that responsibility for public order and safety at a football ground rests with the management of the


football club concerned and that it is open to the management to seek the services of the police.

Mr. Price: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this is becoming a major social problem which needs urgent Government action? Will he do all he can to deter this small minority of thugs and hooligans who are bringing this game into disrepute and at the same time ruining the enjoyment of hundreds of thousands of people?

Mr. Taverne: It may be a serious problem, but it remains a fact that the responsibility for public order is that of the management of the football club, which has the opportunity to hire as many policemen as it thinks necessary. I do not think that this matter calls for direct action by the Government.

Taxi Cabs, London

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now introduce legislation to reform the law governing London petrol taxi cabs.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I propose as soon as practicable to introduce legislation to extend the six mile limit. Other proposals are being discussed with the trade.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I thank the Home Secretary for that concession. However, in view of the state of near-anarchy in the taxi trade, including near-rebellion on the part of taxi drivers, and the grave discontent among the taxi-using classes, will he give this mater a much greater degree of urgency and priority than he has done hitherto?

Mr. Jenkins: I am not exactly sure what the hon. Gentleman's definition of the taxi-using class is, or, for that matter, his definition of a state of anarchy. I had a useful meeting with representatives of the trade on Monday. I agree that there are fairly urgent problems and I hope that we shall be able to solve them in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many taxi drivers are deeply concerned about the plying for hire of minicab drivers? Does he feel that after their months and months of training, taxi drivers should be penalised in this way?

Mr. Jenkins: There is certainly a case for the private car hire business in London and one certainly has to have in mind the interests of the consumer as well as those of the operator. Equally, there is a legitimate grievance about misrepresentation in the sense that it is felt that the use of the word "cab" or of "taxi", either on a car or in an advertisement, is unreasonable, and I am looking closely into this aspect of the matter.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would the proposed extension of the London taxi cab area extend to London Airport? We have been promised that for some time and it is very important that these taxi cabs be brought under control.

Mr. Jenkins: Yes. The extension of the six-mile limit would cover journeys to and from London Airport.

Criminal Courts (Docks)

Mr. McNamara: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now seek the abolition of the dock in criminal proceedings.

Mr. Taverne: My right hon. Friend has still not received replies from all the organisations who have been consulted; but he is considering whether, with due regard to security, it might be possible to dispense with the dock in certain types of case.

Mr. McNamara: Has my hon. and learned Friend made any estimate of the amount of money which could be saved in new court houses if docks were abolished in criminal proceedings?

Mr. Taverne: I am not aware of particular figures, although I have heard it suggested that some money would be saved. At the moment, the general view among the organisations which we have consulted seems to be that the dock cannot be entirely dispensed with.

Mr. Crawshaw: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that to place a supposedly innocent man in a special dock guarded by warders seems to point to his guilt rather than his innocence, and is not that the interpretation which many jurors place upon it? Can he not look at this again and try to do something to make our system a little more enlightened?

Mr. Taverne: Certainly no final decision has been taken and this is one of the matters which will be borne in mind. We also have to have regard to security and the strain placed upon prison officers. All of those things have to be balanced.

Children Act, 1958

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his been the result of his consultations with local authority associations about strengthening the Children Act, 1958.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): This is a complicated matter, and the possibilities are still being discussed with the local authority associations.

Mr. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware of recent serious allegations against foster parents, including suggestions of baby farming? Would she not agree that these allegations ought not to go unanswered, particularly as many thousands of foster parents do a first-class job?

Miss Bacon: The 1958 Act deals not with foster parents who are employed by local authorities, but with private fostering. The document to which my hon. Friend refers and which was mentioned in the Press recently has not yet been sent to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who is responsible for child minding, or to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the 1958 Act. When it is, we shall consider it carefully.

Entry Visas (Vietnamese National Liberation Front)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests he has received to admit to the United Kingdom a spokesman for the Vietnamese National Liberation Front; and what reply he has sent to the one made on 8th March.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Four, during the past six months.
I assume the second part of the Question refers to a letter dated 7th March from the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation. I have informed the Foundation that, for the reasons given in my reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 9th March,

I am not prepared to grant the visas requested.

Mr. Allaun: Is this fair? Whatever the Foreign Secretary may feel, does the Home Secretary realise that he is undermining his good and liberal reputation by refusing free speech and free entry in this way?

Mr. Jenkins: As a member of the Government, my duty is to endeavour in every possible way to help the efforts of the Government to bring this war to an end at the earliest possible time.

Mr. Michael Foot: How can it possibly injure the Government's case in this matter if spokesmen for the National Liberation Front are able to put their case here, as they can elsewhere? If it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, as it is, that representatives of the National Liberation Front should come to a conference, why should they not come to England?

Mr. Jenkins: Because coming to a conference would be to endeavour to get peace, and coming to England would be for a different purpose.

Sir C. Osborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to this request on a reciprocal basis so that the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, who has been refused a hearing in Hanoi, may have one and have the same opportunity to express our opinion there as they want to have to express theirs here?

Mr. Jenkins: That might be rather complicated to arrange.

Charities (Dormant Funds)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to deal with long-standing charitable funds which are lying dormant; and if he will give an estimate of their total amount.

Miss Bacon: The powers conferred on the Charity Commissioners by the Charities Act, 1960, enable them to make a useful scheme for any dormant charitable fund brought to their attention. The Commissioners are not aware of any large amounts of charitable funds now lying dormant.

Mr. Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these powers have not been


implemented in many cases and that throughout the country there are considerable funds, dating back even to the Boer War, which are still lying dormant, but from which good causes could benefit?

Miss Bacon: It is the duty of trustees who find themselves unable to use charitable moneys for the prescribed purpose to apply to the Charity Commissioners for a scheme. Anyone who has knowledge of a dormant fund should inform the Charity Commissioners, who can then use their powers and ensure that the funds are put to good use.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: While the right hon. Lady's Answer will help, is there not sufficient point in this Question for some advertisement to be given to the right hon. Lady's reply?

Miss Bacon: I hope that my reply will get the publicity needed, but if anything else is required, we will certainly consider it.

Northern Ireland (Law and Order)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to obtain residual powers for the maintenance of law and order in Northern Ireland.

Miss Alice Bacon: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to similar Questions on 4th April.—[Vol 744, col. 20–21.]

Mr. Brooks: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is unsatisfactory that a province of this sovereign United Kingdom should apparently have powers to ban legitimate forms of political activity, on the pretext of a threat to law and order, without consulting Her Majesty's Government?

Miss Bacon: As the land stands, the maintenance of law and order in Northern Ireland is in the hands of the Northern Ireland authorities, who are answerable to their electorate.

Mr. Russell Kerr: You must be joking!

Miss Bacon: As my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I discussed several matters with the Prime Minister of

Northern Ireland, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs. Further talks are to take place and I can assure my hon. Friend that we are discussing all those things about which hon. Members have expressed anxiety.

Captain Orr: Is the right hon. Lady aware that she personally has considerable good will in Northern Ireland and that her Answer will be approved? Is she aware that she and the Government should resist pressure from her hon. Friends to interfere with the Parliament of Northern Ireland and its rights, and that any attempt to interfere with those rights would be met with resolute and steadfast resistance?

Miss Bacon: I am aware of the concern which has been expressed and so are my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. As I have said, we are having talks with the Government of Northern Ireland about many of the things which have been causing anxiety.

Mr. Whitaker: In order that the Government of Northern Ireland shall be accountable to their electorate, as the Minister said, does she intend to talk about he phenomenon known as "Derrymandering"?

Miss Bacon: As I have said, we are discussing all aspects with the Government of Northern Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "Gerrymandering?"] We hope to continue these talks shortly.

Quinine (Poisons Board Report)

Mr. Luard: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he has yet received the report of the Poisons Board on the sale of quinine;

(2) what decision he has reached on the report of the Poisons Board concerning the sale of quinine.

Miss Bacon: The Board has recommended that quinine and preparations containing 10 per cent. or more of quinine should be sold against prescription only by authorised sellers of poisons from registered premises. I propose to consider this recommendation in the light of any representations that may be made by interested bodies.

Mr. Luard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this Answer will be widely


welcomed, and that the matters announced in it may help to prevent the repetition of such a tragic incident as occurred recently in Oxford when a young girl lost her life through taking an overdose of quinine, in the belief that it would terminate her pregnancy?

Miss Bacon: I am aware of that, and I should like to thank my hon. Friend for what he has done in bringing this to our notice.

Admiralty Jurisdiction (Isle of Man and Jersey)

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will now make the statutory instrument necessary to apply the enlarged Admiralty jurisdiction contained in the Administration of Justice Act, 1956, to the courts of the Isle of Man;
(2) if he will now make the statutory instrument necessary to apply the enlarged Admiralty jurisdiction contained in the Administration of Justice Act, 1956, to the courts of Jersey.

Miss Bacon: As my right hon. Friend has stared in reply to previous Questions by the hon. and learned Member, he considers, as his predecessors have done, that it is for the island authorities, if they so wish, to take the initiative in this matter.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would the right hon. Lady draw the attention of the authorities in the Isle of Man and Jersey to the fact that, unless courts are given this enlarged Admiralty jurisdiction, if there is a disaster such as the "Torrey Canyon", there can be no arrest of a sister ship in these courts and no recovery of damages? Would she also point out that Guernsey has adopted this enlarged Admiralty jurisdiction?

Miss Bacon: The two islands are well aware of the position, and I do not think that they need this pointing out. As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, the step has already been taken by Guernsey, but it is up to the two islands to decide on this matter for themselves.

Immigrants (Recommendations for Deportation)

Mr. Gurden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he has received recommendations

for deportation of immigrants for offences against the Rent Acts;

(2) if it is his policy to deport immigrants for offences connected with the Rent Acts.

Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend considers every recommendation for deportation on its merits, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and the offender. I have not been able to trace any recommendation in respect of an offence under the Rent Acts.

Mr. Gurden: Is this not rather surprising, when it is proved that there is "Rachmanism" practised against English people—who have occupied a house for 12 years—by Pakistanis in order to obtain the house for their own countrymen?

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to comment on any particular case, or a hypothetical case, but the matter reaches my right hon. Friend only if a court has pronounced a sentence and made a recommendation for deportation.

Mr. Rose: In view of the misery caused by the original 1957 Rent Act, would my right hon. Friend perhaps consider deporting those responsible for it?

Immigration Control (Incidents)

Mr. Rose: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions he has given to immigration officers to prevent the repetition of recent incidents, details of which have been sent to him, involving visitors to this country who have been subjected to the arbitrary and immediate decisions of immigration officers.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to the cases of Mr. Jorgen Hansen and Miss Barbro Eriksson. For the reasons given in the letters sent to my hon. Friend on 25th January and 16th March, the action taken by the immigration officer in Mr. Hansen's case was entirely justified, and no fresh instructions are called for in that connection. In the case of Miss Eriksson, the immigration officer acted within the terms of the instructions in force at the time, but I have since adjusted the instructions so that a similar difficulty is less likely to occur in the future.

Mr. Rose: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware of the damage done to the image of Britain abroad when visitors are humiliated in this way? Would he look into the detention and deportation procedures, and the wide powers that some immigration officers employ? Perhaps they could be subject to some form of supervision or appeal?

Mr. Jenkins: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Committee under Sir Roy Wilson is actively considering this matter, and I hope to have its report within a matter of a few months. On the other point raised by my hon. Friend, I am constantly aware of the importance of preserving a welcoming image for this country, but I ask the House also to bear in mind that immigration officers have a very difficult task to perform.

Mr. Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that among the recent incidents, details of which have been sent to him, is that of the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister of British Honduras, who was subjected to a medical examination at London Airport in the most dubious circumstances? Has not the time come for an independent inquiry into the methods and facilities used for the medical examination of foreign visitors to this country?

Mr. Jenkins: My hon. Friend is presumably asking a supplementary question on Question No. 44, which has not yet been reached. As it appears that it may not be reached, perhaps I may be permitted to answer, and say that my hon. Friend is to some extent misinformed. This lady applied for an entry permit for permanent settlement with her daughter. This entry permit was readily granted, but it is normal to include a medical examination of those arriving for settlement in this country.

Mr. Buck: Will the Home Secretary publish the new instructions which he has now given to immigration officers, so that we may know what criteria they are working on relative to the medical examination of people? Perhaps he can also tell me when he will reply to the searching letter on the merits of the case which I wrote to him about 10 days ago?

Mr. Jenkins: I think that the hon. Gentleman will probably have a reply to-

morrow, but I thought it more important to answer the Question and inform the House, rather than to inform the hon. Member first, great importance though I attach to doing that. On the hon. Gentleman's other point, it has not been the practice to publish these instructions, but I will consider the matter.

Children (Work in Entertainment)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an assurance that he will not issue Regulations to legalise work in entertainment by children at present being performed illegally.

Miss Bacon: The extent to which work which is now illegal will be legalised when regulations are made under Part II of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963, depends on the provisions of that Act. The purpose which I believe my hon. Friend has in mind could not be achieved without new legislation.

Mr. Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that new legislation is very desirable, and that the 1963 Act is a thoroughly bad Act and that any Regulations stemming from it must be equally bad?

Miss Bacon: My hon. Friend has now recognised what I said, that to achieve his object he would need new legislation. I understand that what he objects to is the performance of children in television commercials. While I appreciate the views of those who believe that performances by children on the stage and films produce precocious children, I find it difficult to appreciate the view of my hon. Friend, who seems to think that there is less harm in a child playing the rôle of the child of a divorced parent in a film than advertising Smarties or Jelly Tops.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Has the right hon. Lady got any views about the use of children on posters to advertise local government elections?

Mr. Jenkins: On a point of order. For the clarification of the House, I will seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Dogs and Cats (Experiments)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now introduce proposals to implement the


proposals of the Littlewood Committee, giving special consideration to limiting experiments on dogs and cats.

Miss Bacon: I cannot yet say when it may be practicable to introduce legislation on this subject.

Mr. Wall: Can the Minister say whether she has had conversations with all interested bodies, and whether she will make a special consideration of dogs and cats, in view of the special place that they occupy in human affections?

Miss Bacon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it has taken us a long time to get the views of all the interested bodies. It was in August, 1965, that we asked for these views. The most important of these bodies have now forwarded their views to us, and we shall take everything into consideration, including the dogs and cats.

London Government Act, 1967

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that the recent elections in Greater London show that the composition and membership of many councils of London boroughs no longer reflect the wishes of their electors, he will introduce immediate legislation to repeal the London Government Act, 1967.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not clear beyond all doubt that a large number of London boroughs are now saddled with Labour-controlled councils which the majority of their electors have rejected? In view of the expressed desire of hon. Members oposite to protect democracy in Athens, would it not be as well to begin in London?

Mr. Jenkins: I am not sure that the repeal of the Act might not conceivably have had the effect of invalidating the G.L.C. elections owing to the fact that the date, for the avoidance of doubt, was fixed in it. Secondly, I do not think that a swing of opinion necessarily involves imediate elections. It was fairly obvious to everybody in 1963 and in the early part of 1964 that an election would rapidly have got rid of the Government of the day which, none the less, clung on to power until the last moment.

Mr. Molloy: Would my right hon. Friend acknowledge the warning which many of us on this side gave that the Act which established the G.L.C. was so full of cheating and chicanery that this result was inevitable?

Mr. Sharples: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recent events have shown the London Government Act to be a piece of bare-faced political gerrymandering? When and how does he intend to restore political rights to the people of London?

Mr. Jenkins: The people of London have voted and will have the opportunity of voting next year. I am sorry that the Opposition are so nervous about their chances in a year's time.

Meetings (Records)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions he has issued to chief constables about obtaining records of meetings held in their areas.

Mr. Taverne: None, Sir.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, according to the evidence which I have received from the National Council for Civil Liberties, it is the practice of some police authorities to obtain records of harmless meetings of political organisations and bodies? Will he take steps to discourage this in the areas in which it applies?

Mr. Taverne: I am aware of a recent case in which concern was expressed. The normal police practice, of attending a public meeting to ensure that there is no disturbance through hecklers, was adopted. The police officer on that occasion was concerned to check that his report was accurate. There was nothing sinister in this. But I am aware of the concern about records being made of what is said, and I shall certainly look into that.

Police (Coloured Immigrants)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about police prejudice and brutality against coloured immigrants and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have not for some time received any such representations,


in terms specific enough to enable in vestigations to be made.

Mr. Fisher: While I have no personal knowledge about whether the allegations made by the organisation known as C.A.R.D. are justified—they have received some publicity in the Press—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would agree that at least they should be fully investigated and, if found to be justified, that the police officers concerned should be treated with some severity?

Mr. Jenkins: The C.A.R.D. Report mentioned 43 cases, of which five referred to the police. But they were anonymous cases, and it would not be possible or desirable to proceed without information from and the permission of C.A.R.D. But I am sure that chief police officers throughout the country are in no doubt at all of my view that it is most important that good relations should be preserved between the police and the coloured community.

Justices of the Peace (Allowances)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the difficulty caused by the absence of any provision for financial loss allowance by justices of the peace and by the provisions disabling justices of the peace who perform their duties not more than three miles from their normal place of residence from entitlement to subsistence allowances; and what action he proposes to take to remove this restriction.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am glad to inform my hon. Friend, to whose active interest in this matter I pay tribute, that the Government agree in principle to the payment of financial loss allowances and the removal of the three-mile restriction on substistence allowance, and legislation will be introduced when circumstances permit.

Sir B. Janner: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that it will give considerable satisfaction to those concerned in this matter and that in the circumstances I propose to withdraw the Bill which stands in my name?

Mr. Jenkins: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He has played a great part in bringing about this acceptance in principle.

National Traffic Inspectorate

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek powers to establish a national traffic inspectorate to take over all the duties of controlling and supervising road traffic movement and parking, and enforcing traffic laws and regulations so as to free the civil police from responsibility for these duties.

Mr. Taverne: I am not convinced that this course would be either practicable or desirable. But I am concerned that here as elsewhere police officers should not ordinarily be employed on duties which can be properly and effectively undertaken by other persons, and I am giving close attention to the division of responsibility between the uniformed police and civilian auxiliaries.

Mr. Hooley: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that the laws and regulations relating to traffic are now becoming as complex as laws and regulations in other important fields such as Income Tax and public health, and that it is just as absurd to expect civil police to cope with all of them as it would be to expect them to cope with enforcement in those other fields? Do not we need a special enforcement body for this job?

Mr. Taverne: I dealt with this matter in reply to an earlier Question. But there is a different consideration here, because cars are used so often in other offences. This has been the experience in other countries. It is very difficult to separate traffic matters from crime matters. There would be competition about accommodation and overlapping in the ordinary regulation of traffic when questions of public order are involved. In the circumstances, I do not think that my hon. Friend's idea is a good one.

FLAGS OF CONVENIENCE

Mr. Grimond: asked the Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take to restrict or control the use of flags of convenience by ships trading with the United Kingdom; and if he will place in the Library a copy of his public statement made on 29th March on this subject.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): We have no immediate proposals on this issue, Sir. But Her Majesty's Government have consistently maintained that there should be a genuine link between a ship and her country of registry. As to the second part of the right hen. Gentleman's Question, I was answering questions at a Press Conference without a prepared text and the right hon. Gentleman must therefore rely on newspaper accounts of my remarks.

Mr. Grimond: Has the Prime Minister any evidence that the accident to the "Torrey Canyon" was due to the fact that it was sailing under a flag of convenience, or was alleged to have been? Will this matter be investigated in whatever inquiries are made into this unfortunate wreck?

The Prime Minister: We must await the report of the inquiry which has been conducted by the Liberian Government while still reserving our position as to whether a further inquiry is necessary under our own auspices. That will be the time to consider those questions.

Mr. Hector Hughes: As to compensation, does my right hon. Friend realise—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the next Question which deals with compensation.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the allegation that the British flag has been used as a flag of convenience by foreigners trading with North Vietnam?

The Prime Minister: I think that that point arose in Questions yesterday.

Mr. Maudling: If, as appears from newspaper reports, the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there is some connection between flags of convenience and the "Torrey Canyon" affair, will he make sure that this evidence is made available to any inquiries which take place?

The Prime Minister: This was in the course of a long Press conference, and I was very much pressed on this question. I said what I felt. Many people in the past, not least our own seamen's union, have often made the point about flags of convenience to us. I thought it right to say this. I have no evidence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have no evidence

as yet as to the exact mistake made in navigation, or whether that was related to its being a flag of convenience ship.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Whatever the flag, is not the bombing of ships in Haiphong harbour a most dangerous escalation of the war and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is ingenious, but the Question is about flags of convenience.

Mr. Noel-Baker: On a point of order. The ship which was bombed in Haiphong harbour was carrying the British flag. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) suggested that that was an abuse of the British flag. I was asking whether, whatever the flag, the bombing of ships in Haiphong Harbour was a dangerous escalation of the war in Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I fully understood the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question and made the comment which I thought right.

Oral Answers to Questions — "TORREY CANYON"

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on the question of compensation arising from the wreck of the "Torrey Canyon".

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The matter is still being considered but a report will, of course, be given to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Molloy: In so far as the swift action taken by the Government in preventing what might have been a great disaster on our coast—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite must not be so juvenilely jealous.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Mr. Molloy: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the action taken by the Government cost a great deal of money which will be shouldered by the British public? Will he make continuous efforts to recover that money?

The Prime Minister: I had better not say anything about obligations at this stage while the question of legal proceedings is going on. I do not want to


say anything either as to who will have the right to share in anything which may be awarded or anything which might prejudice a successful conclusion of the negotiations.

Mr. Buck: Would the Prime Minister care to comment on reports that it is the intention of the French Government to make a claim against the British Government because it is suggested that one of the detergents put on some oil made it more susceptible to the flow of wind and tide?

The Prime Minister: There is no suggestion of that coming from the French Government, and we are working closely with the French to help attack the problem of oil on the beaches.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY

Mr. Eadie: asked the Prime Minister what communications he has received from the heads of the European Coal and Steel Community as a result of his visits to Common Market countries.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir, though my hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I met members of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community during our visit to Luxembourg in March. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power is of course also in close touch with them in the normal course of his duties.

Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many miners in the country view with disquiet Britain's proposed entry into the Common Market? Would he agree that this country produces more coal than all the Common Market countries put together, yet at present Common Market countries have millions of tons of surplus coal lying on the ground?

The Prime Minister: The problem of surpluses in Europe or elsewhere, whether of coal or steel, is a general one and does not relate to the question of possible British application to join the E.C.S.C. I am satisfied from our talks that the members of the E.C.S.C. fully understand the predominant position which Britain has in European coal.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is also alarm in

the mining areas that there will be an increase in the cost of living, especially of foodstuffs, if we go into the Common Market and that that will lead to a demand by the miners for increased wages? May we have an assurance that my right hon. Friend will support the miners in their claim?

The Prime Minister: This is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper, which is about the European Coal and Steel Community, and on a number of occasions I have answered questions about possible effects on the cost of living and food prices.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY AND THE UNIVERSITIES

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to report within two years on the relationship between British industries and the universities.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of industry's legitimate concern about commercial secrecy and the universities' concern about product motivated research, does my right hon. Friend not think that some investigation is called for in the interests of productivity?

The Prime Minister: I feel that it is desirable that industry and the universities should work together as closely as possible, and good progress is being made here. My hon. Friend will know of the report of the working party appointed by the Council for Scientific Policy, and that the C.B.I. and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors have appointed a joint committee to give proper direction to the work of bringing the two sides together.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr. Maxwell: asked the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to a Franco-British European nuclear force.

The Prime Minister: As has been explained before, the Government's policy is to internationalise our strategic nuclear forces as a powerful contribution to the overall Western nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Maxwell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Can he tell us why Britain should hold on to these weapons by herself and deny them to other European countries? Further, can he say in what way the internationalisation of our nuclear weapons really is helping to convince the Europeans that we are Europe an in politics as well as in trade?

The Prime Minister: This matter has been fully debated at the length called for by such a question, and my hon. Friend will recognise the great importance of securing a non-proliferation agreement, in which we are playing a very leading part at this time. I do not believe that my hon. Friend would be right in suggesting that this is causing difficulties at present in our discussions with Europe.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told us last week that Britain has already internationalised her nuclear deterrent? Is he now saying that that is not so? If so, will he tell the House what further steps he contemplates?

The Prime Minister: I did not say that it was not so. Nothing that I said was incompatible with what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said. These forces are allocated to N.A.T.O. To that extent, they are internationalised. But the House will know that we are seeking for clearer arrangements within N.A.T.O. on the basis under which our strategic deterrent will be internationalised.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Brooks: asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to give independence to Ulster.

The prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Brooks: May I thank my right hon. Friend for a simple answer to a devious Question? Is he aware that there will be great satisfaction on all sides of the House that independence is out of the question, at least until such time as the principle of one man, one vote, is implemented?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware that any political group in Northern Ireland or, for that matter, outside it

believes that the Northern Ireland Government have too little power or would gain anything from independence. The view is sometimes expressed in this House that they have too much power. This is dealing with a rather remote contingency.

Mr. Stratton Mills: While acknowledging that the Prime Minister has always acted with constitutional propriety towards Northern Ireland, may I ask if he will confirm that there is a longstanding convention of non-interference in Northern Ireland affairs by the Westminster Government?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I did say that two years ago. But I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there has been widespread concern in more than one part of the House about certain events which have occurred in Northern Ireland. Without departing from the convention, I thought it right to embark on a series of talks with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland to discuss these questions and, as he knows, I have had two very interesting discussions, and a third will take place in due course.

Mr. Orme: In view of the growing concern over the position in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his previous answer about setting up a Royal Commission to take a new look at the 1920 Government of Ireland Act?

The Prime Minister: This question started from giving them independence. Now we are asked to set up a Royal Commission to look into matters which, under the law, are the concern of the Government of Northern Ireland. I think that a Royal Commission would not be appropriate here, but some of my hon. Friends set up a commission themselves recently, went over there and produced a report which I am sure they would wish to make available to the House.

Captain Orr: Is the Prime Minister aware that the kind of pressure to which he is being subjected from some of his hon. Friends does considerable harm to the cause of better community relationships in Northern Ireland, and that they bear a very heavy responsibility if trouble should follow.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the House will like the tone of the last few words of the hon. Gentleman's question. I have paid tribute to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland for the advances which have been made during his Premiership on many of these questions, and he deserves the backing of the whole House for what he has done. There is still acute concern about many questions affecting the functioning of democracy over there.

Mr. Heath: I welcome the tribute which the right hon. Gentleman has paid to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland for the work which he is carrying on, and I recognise the importance of the discussions which the two Prime Ministers have had. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about the constitutional convention of not interfering in the affairs of Northern Ireland. However, what he said two years ago went further than that. He repeated the pledge of Mr. Attlee, as he then was, that there would be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland without the free consent of the people of Northern Ireland. Could the right hon. Gentleman restate that?

The Prime Minister: That is what I said on 6th May, 1965, and I stand by it. Progress will be made not by talking about sweeping changes of this kind but by the sort of progress which we hope to make in our discussions with the Prime Minister and his colleagues. I know that the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) will agree that there is still a long way to go.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Prime Minister which Ministers are responsible for providing services for social inadequates.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman in his Question uses a phrase sometimes used by social workers but not one, I think, which the House would wish to adopt in our debates. Having said that, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Social Security all have re-

sponsibilities for dealing with the group of people the hon. Gentleman has in mind, with my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio exercising a co-ordinating function.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Prime Minister aware that when the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, we always got a sympathetic hearing from him on the problem. Now that he has left, it appears that there is a lack of co-ordination among the different Ministers. Would it not be the Government's official policy to instruct voluntary agencies such as the Simon Community to play the maximum role they can in dealing with the situation and ask local authorities to help in providing premises?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept that there is any change in either the system of co-ordination or the sympathy with which the problem is approached. I agree that, in this field of activity, the answer lies in encouraging the efforts of all voluntary bodies concerned as well as the local authorities. One body which has done a great deal for this is the Simon Community, with which the hon. Gentleman has been in touch, and it was that body which he brought to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).

Mr. Winnick: Would my right hon. Friend accept that in so many of these cases the problem arises from a totally inadequate wage?

The Prime Minister: I know my hon. Friend's views about this, but I think he is going too far in suggesting that the problems of all these people, including, for example, those who have been variously called tramps, vagrants, itinerants, casuals, wayfarers, drifters, misfits, alcoholics, crude spirit drinkers, and ex-prisoners and mentally ill people are due to the prices and incomes policy.

R.A.F. STATION, WEST DRAYTON

Mr. Ryan: Mr. Ryan (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the results of the search for concealed bombs at R.A.F. Station, West Drayton.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): An anonymous letter, addressed to the Commanding Officer at West Drayton, was received yesterday morning which said that plastic explosives had been placed in three positions in the main buildings and were timed to explode on Wednesday or Thursday.
At R.A.F., West Drayton, construction and installation work is going on for what is known as Linesman/Mediator, the joint civil and military air traffic control system for the United Kingdom. The military side of the system is not operational: part of the civil side is operational.
A decision was taken to evacuate two of the main buildings immediately. The third train building, which houses part of the London Air Traffic Control Centre was not evacuated, since this could not have been done without disrupting civil air traffic operations.
A search was conducted in the course of yesterday which covered the London Air Traffic Control Centre as well as the R.A.F. buildings. An Army bomb disposal unit took part in the search. Nothing was found. A further and more detailed search is now in progress. The police have been informed and are conducting investigations.
The buildings are still evacuated. It is intended to resume normal work tomorrow.

Mr. Ryan: I thank my hon. Friend for that Statement, and the urgency with which he personally dealt with the problem. Perhaps I might ask three questions. First, will my hon. Friend give a guarantee that the inspection will continue for at least another few days to make sure that this was not a baseless hoax?
Secondly, will he comment on the possible dangers to the civilian population, in what is a densely populated area, of plastic explosives being on this base?
Finally, will he tell the House his view of the adequacy of the Press liaison which was maintained with the Ministry, in view of the fact that one London newspaper, at least, contained a statement, attributed to the Ministry, that a bomb had been discovered? This caused a great deal of consternation in the locality.

Mr. Rees: I visited the Royal Air Force Station at West Drayton this morning. The building is under construction, and things there are very difficult. It is like looking for a needle in a haystack. I saw the anonymous letter. It was written like a crossword puzzle, being made up of bits. It is probably a hoax. It says that the danger was yesterday and today. All I can say is that tomorrow morning the work will continue on the construction of the building which has been evacuated.
I assure my hon. Friend—I spoke to the bomb disposal people—that there is no danger at all to civilians outside the Royal Air Force station. I have looked into the statement to the Press, and I assure my hon. Friend that no statement came from the Ministry of Defence that a bomb had been found.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that in view of the vital importance of these computers, which eventually will control both military and civilian traffic, emergency arrangements will be available at short notice should a disaster of fire, or accident, or even sabotage, occur in the future?

Mr. Rees: It will be two or three years before this very expensive and sophisticated complex to control military and civilian air traffic is completed. Arrangements will be made so that if something of that kind happens flying will be able to continue, but, given the nature of it, there is no doubt that if anything happened there flying control would be limited at least to some degree, because one would not have use of the resources there.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. How can an anonymous letter provide the basis for a special Parliamentary Answer? I would have thought that the Members concerned ought to have conducted the investigation privately at this stage, without taking up Parliamentary time.

Mr. Speaker: It is a Private Notice Question, which is a matter for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. C. Pannell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is, of course, a matter for your unfettered discretion, but


in so far as this has proved to be completely hypothetical, and an absolute nonevent, although your decision was given in good faith, I wonder whether, as the history of Private Notice Questions shows that so many of them have been refused, you would reconsider the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I consider this matter every day. Every day I receive requests for Private Notice Questions. The House has given me a discretion. It is not an easy task, but I try to carry it out to the best of my ability.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 1ST MAY—In the morning—
Second Reading of the Live Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill.
In the afternoon—
Supply [18th Allotted Day]
Debate on an Opposition Motion on the F111K Aircraft Contract.
Resumed debate on the Motion on Finance Bills.
TUESDAY, 2ND MAY—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 3RD MAY—In the morning—
Second Reading of the Fishing Vessel Grants Bill.
Motions on the Ploughing Grants Schemes and the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme.
In the afternoon—
Supply [19th Allotted Day].
Prices and Incomes Prayers—
Until 7 p.m., Electrical Contractors in Scotland.
Thereafter, Employees of the Royal Burgh of Rothesay.
Completion of the Second Reading of the Post Office (Data Processing Service) Bill.
Motions on the National Insurance (Earnings) Regulations, the Anti-Dumping Duty Order and the West Midlands (Amendment) Order.
THURSDAY, 4TH MAY—Debate on a Motion to take note of the Fourth Report from the Estimates Committee, Session 1966–67, on the Government Statistical Services and the Ninth Special Report relating thereto.
FRIDAY, 5TH MAY—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 8TH MAY—The proposed busines will be:
In the morning—
Remaining stages of the Dangerous Drugs Bill.
In the afternoon—
Supply [20th Allotted Day].
Debate on a subject to be announced.
The House will wish to know that it is intended to propose that the House should rise for the Whitsun Adjournment on Friday, 12th May, until Wednesday, 31st May

Mr. Heath: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he hopes to bring before the House the Motion of congratulation to be sent to the Canadian Parliament on its centenary?
Secondly, can he say what arrangements the Government have made to inform the House about the basis of their Common Market policy? Can he say when the Prime Minister's speech to the Labour Party tonight will be published in its official form, and whether questions and answers will be attached as well?

Mr. Crossman: On the first part of the question, since my answer on Thursday last I have learned that it would be more convenient if the Motion could be delayed for some days. In consequence, it is now proposed that it should come before the House on Tuesday next.
With regard to information for the House on the Common Market, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that it is a little difficult to talk about this, because the date of the announcement, or an announcement, is still not settled. Every preparation is being made, in the event of an announcement, for two stages. In the first stage, before the debate, it is


hoped that all possible material will be got together at relatively short notice. After the debate it will be possible to have a much more massive documentation, which is now under preparation.
As for the Prime Minister's speech, I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I would like to have a word with the Prime Minister before I answer that question.

Mr. Rankin: My right hon. Friend told us that there would be a debate on Monday on the F111K aircraft. Will copies of the original contract be available for hon. Members, along with any variations of that contract?

Mr. Crossman: I will bear my hon. Friend's request in mind and put it to the Secretary of State for Defence.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government would consider publishing the Prime Minister's speech on the Common Market, which would be available, of course, to the House and the public. In view of the tremendous interest in this matter throughout the country, surely the country is entitled to hear the other side of the story from the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and others who will be called.

Mr. Crossman: It would be difficult for me to anticipate what is likely to happen at a meeting which has not yet occurred.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: When will the Government give us time for a debate on any of the foreign affairs questions which urgently need our attention?

Mr. Crossman: I cannot talk with complete confidence about the last days before the Recess, for obvious reasons, but it is unlikely that there will be a general foreign affairs debate before the Recess. The two major controversial subjects have recently been discussed in other debates.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Reverting to the question of the information to be made available before the debate on the Common Market, surely it is very unsatisfactory and of doubtful constitutional propriety that the only material which the Government can put before Parliament should be statements made at private meet-

ings of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Would the right hon. Gentleman not think it proper to produce proper material on which the House can make an informed assessment of these problems before the debate?

Mr. Crossman: Apparently, I did not make the Government's position clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I was asked a special question about the Prime Minister's speech upstairs, which he had already assured the House would be available to hon. Members. I was also asked about a possible White Paper, on which I said that there would be two stages—one which would take place before the debate, and the more massive stage after the debate. Every effort will be made before the debate to provide information on all the topics relevant to the decision, whatever it may be. On the last occasion when a decision on this kind of subject was taken, there was no such White Paper, so we are trying to do a very difficult job.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but could he clarify the position a little further? Is he saying that the White Paper will be published before the Prime Minister makes his announcement or that the Prime Minister will announce his intention to negotiate, then the White Paper will be published and then the debate will take place?

Mr. Crossman: All I had better say is that the White Paper will be announced in time to be useful to hon. Members in the debate.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend, in the coming week, find time for my Motion No. 510, on the withdrawal of railway vouchers to seamen coming home who wish to visit their families, which is a very serious matter?

[That this House is of opinion that for social, family, economic and other reasons the withdrawal by British Railways of the cheap fare railway vouchers hitherto available to seamen and their families is wrong as it frustrates family re-unions, deprives British Railways of fares, diminishes British Railways incomes and now calls upon Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Transport, by legislation or otherwise, to restore to British seamen and their families the relevant


facilities which they have hitherto enjoyed.]

Mr. Crossman: We all recognise the importance of this question. I am glad to say that two Questions have recently been answered on this by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. This subject could perhaps be dealt with directly between by hon. and learned Friend and her.

Sir T. Beamish: Why is not a free debate being allowed this evening on the Government side on Clause 10 of the Criminal Justice Bill, in the light of all the appeals? What possible justification is there for the Government's attitude?

Mr. Crossman: As I often have to remind hon. Gentlemen, this is a matter for the Patronage Secretary, but I should not be surprised if certain differences of practice occur this afternoon.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: In view of the very welcome announcement of the President of the Board of Trade yesterday that the Government are at last getting down to the question of the advertising industry and the effect on the public and consumers, will my right hon. Friend say when we can have a debate on the whole issue?

Mr. Crossman: I will certainly consider that. It is an interesting subject. We will bear it in mind, but I can give a categoric assurance that a debate will not take place next week.

Dame Irene Ward: In the event of a debate on the Common Market, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Prime Minister so that we may have information on the next occasion that he answers business questions, to ensure that, when and if a debate takes place, we can have a free vote on a matter which is of vital importance to the country?

Mr. Crossman: This is very much a matter for the Patronage Secretary and his opposite number and is a highly hypothetical question.

Dame Irene Ward: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman himself act?

Mr. Grieve: Would the right hon. Gentleman find time for an early debate

on Motion No. 519, in the names of a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, which notes
… the grave disruption of the lives of the workers at the Royal Mint which would result from its removal from London …
and says that the
appropriate place for this great national institution is the capital …
and
deplores the decison of the Government to remove it …".

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman should give a short summary of the contents of the Motion, rather than read it.

Mr. Crossman: If I understand the purport of the question, I have nothing to add to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on Tuesday.

Mr. Burden: Would the right hon. Gentleman turn his attention to Motion No. 39, of 2nd December, 1965:

"That this House takes note of the Report of the Brambell Committee, congratulates them on the thoroughness of their investigation into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems, and urges Her Majesty's Government to arrange for an early debate on their recommendations."?

It is signed by 79 hon. Members and asks for a debate on the Brambell Committee's Report which his predecessor said would shortly take place. A long time has gone by. Would he please give some hope of an early debate?

Mr. Crossman: Having reached Motion No. 519, I am ill-briefed for a reply to that question.

Mr. Maxwell: If circumstances arise which make it impossible for the Cabinet to come to the House with an announcement about the Common Market before the Whitsun Recess, has my right hon. Friend made arrangements to recall Parliament, so that a statement may be made to the House?

Mr. Crossman: I can give the House an assurance that our Recess will be, in that respect, undisturbed.

Mr. Peyton: Would the right hon. Gentleman arrange an early debate on Anglo-American relations? The Prime


Minister was so strangely touchy on the subject of the special relationship the other day that a debate is clearly necessary.

Mr. Crossman: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's sensitivity to all these questions. I. will put the point to the Prime Minister to see whether he shares the hon. Gentleman's anxiety for such a debate.

Mr. Brian Harrison: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has given time for a Bill on live hare coursing, would he assure us that he will give equal consideration to one about children, such as that introduced by the hon Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) last Monday?

Mr. Crossman: I take the hon. Gentleman's question in all seriousness, because which of these Bills is given favour is an important issue. I will bear his question in mind and give him a considered reply to it.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: In view of the tremendous historic importance of the decision of the House on whether or not to join the European Economic Community, would my right hon. Friend reconsider his assessment of the necessity to give only two days to the subject and, instead, give a full week, so that the points of view of all sides may be very fully put and debated?

Mr. Crossman: It may be that I am too hardened a Member of the House, but I have a suspicion that those who have been here as long as I have would view the prospect of a full week's debate with something approaching horror. I have made no statement about the length of the debate, and I would not like to until and unless a firm decision is taken on the subject.

Sir C. Osborne: Why are we being given such a long Whitsun Holiday, when the most important—

An Hon. Member: Come off it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must listen to unpopular opinions.

Sir C. Osborne: —when the most momentous decision facing the country for centuries is before us? When questions on the Common Market will need

to be asked in all seriousness from both sides, why is the right hon. Gentleman sending us away? To gag us?

Mr. Crossman: I should not have thought that last suggestion worthy of the hon. Gentleman. We had better wait and see what kind of pronouncement is made before making up our minds on this issue.
As for the length of the Recess, the hon. Gentleman is right. It is just slightly longer than the average time for the Whitsun Recess—one day longer. This is for the convenience of hon. Members, because I thought that travelling on a Bank Holiday would be inconvenient, so we will start again on Wednesday rather than on Tuesday. If the hon. Gentleman begrudges us that, let him say so on the Adjournment Motion.

Mr. Tapsell: As it involves no party political point, will the right hon. Gentleman please consider further his reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) about the future of the Royal Mint? Would he consider whether, before any irrevocable decision is taken, we may have a debate, particularly bearing in mind that all the points which the Chancellor gave as having led to this decision can be produced in the opposite sense?

Mr. Crossman: I will communicate to the Chancellor what the hon. Gentleman says, but I must make it clear that the Chancellor announced a decision.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: Could my right hon. Friend now give a public reply to my private request for an urgent and early debate on the Suez affair of 1956, in the light of the very damaging revelations which have appeared in book form today and will start running through The Times from Saturday morning onwards, and as these allegations concern the personal conduct and honour of right hon. Members of the House?

Mr. Crossman: As for the privacy of my hon. Friend's communication I was, of course, glad to read it in The Times before it reached me.
On the serious question, those of us who no longer have the anticipation which goes with being book-reviewers had better have a chance of reading the book to see whether what appears in it is worthy of debate or not.

Sir J. Eden: Would the right hon. Gentleman look again at the series of answers which he has given on the question of supplying the House with information about the Common Market? Since the Government have been perfectly ready to table what they call a Green Paper on a lunatic suggestion to make regional employment premiums—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have debate. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Sir J. Eden: Cannot the Government, on this important issue, summarise some of the major points so as to make the information available early to hon. Members?

Mr. Crossman: I do not want in any way to mislead the House by underrating what we are trying to bring out in time for a debate which may or may not occur. Everything possible will be done to summarise the major points in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests if the debate takes place. I added that the massive documentation which I think the nation deserves must be postponed to somewhat later, but a considerable job is now being done to help the hon. Gentleman in the way he wants.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does my right hon. Friend recollect his past assurance about the House debating the Report of the Ministry of Overseas Development? When will we be given time for a discussion of this very important subject of overseas aid?

Mr. Crossman: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I will bear it in mind, but we shall not see a debate this side of the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Hastings: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the apprehensions expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) about the deterioration of Anglo-American relations are widely felt on this side of the House, that many of us hold that it is the attitude of his hon. Friends to the American effort in Vietnam which is—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may ask for time for debate; he cannot argue now.

Mr. Hastings: Would the right hon. Gentleman afford time at an early date

for a debate on this important aspect of foreign affairs?

Mr. Crossman: I hesitate to say something so obvious to the hon. Gentleman, but this kind of subject would be natural for a Supply day.

Mr. Webster: In view of the exceptional facilities which the Government are giving the Live Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that no Private Member's Bill dealing with the relief of hardship to animals will suffer as a result?

Mr. Crossman: I would not dream of giving an assurance that anything will suffer or not suffer as a result of the debate on the Live Hare Coursing Bill on Monday morning, but I will assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take each Bill on its merits. That is the only way in which we can look at the vast number of Private Members' Bills and judge which of them we try to help through to fulfilment and which we do not.

Mr. Bob Brown: Animal lovers throughout the country will applaud the Government's decision to provide time for the Live Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill, but will not my right hon. Friend reconsider the cruel reply which he gave in respect of the Brambell Report?

Mr. Crossman: I did not think that my reply was cruel. I was asked a question about Motion No. 39. I think that that Motion was tabled before I became Leader of the House. I said that I was not prepared to answer at the moment.
As for the Brambell Report and its future, I think, if my memory is not wrong, that we ought now to expect legislation on this subject and that we are expecting a debate to take place on the legislation; but if that is considered unsatisfactory, I shall be perfectly glad to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: In view of the extraordinary importance of the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon to the Parliamentary Labour Party, would not it be a useful reform to allow the Press and Conservative hon. Members to be present?

Mr. Crossman: I am always willing to consider all forms of Parliamentary reform before rejecting some of them.

Mr. Rasmden: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to tell the House why he is making it the practice to put down controversial business for discussion at morning sittings, contrary to the undertaking which he gave on 14th December last?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that I have anything to add to what I said last week on this subject. It is for the Leader of the House to carefully weigh what business he puts down. I have looked at this matter closely since I was questioned about it.
I should have thought that, for example, the Sheffield Order, which I put down for morning business, was highly controversial in one sense—it aroused deep feelings among the people living in Derbyshire and Sheffield—but not controversial, by my definition, from the point of view of party controversy.
Equally, I should have thought that the Order dissolving the Ministry of Aviation was cortroversial in one sense, but did not involve direct party controversy. I could give a number of important examples of subjects which have been discussed in the morning and which are controversial in a way which does not violate certainly the intention of the statement which I made—which, by the way, was complemented by a further statement in which I said that, broadly speaking, we would take in the mornings the kind of business that we had been taking after 10 o'clock at night. That business is, mostly, as I have described—controversial, but not major issues of party controversy.

Sir R. Russell: Reverting to the question of the Brambell Report, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members would like to debate this subject before legislation is introduced?

Mr. Crossman: I will certainly bear that in mind and will consider it.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Concerning business conducted at morning sittings, will the right hon. Gentleman now answer a question which, last week, he specifically invited me to ask him, namely, on what principle are the Government working in

giving time for a Bill to which the House had not yet given approval in principle?

Mr. Crossman: I do not quite follow the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's question. Is he referring to the Live Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill?

Mr. van Straubenzee: Mr. van Straubenzee indicated assent.

Mr. Crossman: I think I am right in saying that the Bill was put forward under the Ten Minute Rule and was not opposed, and that it was the subject of an early-day Motion, which a large number of hon. Members supported and which no hon. Members opposed. I do not quite understand, therefore, the meaning of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Evelyn King: In the light of the continued presence of the Minister without Portfolio in Aden and of the recommendations which, presumably, he is about to make, coupled with the fact that murders are still taking place there at the rate of one per day, may we be assured that a statement on Aden will be made—and, if possible, a debate held —before we rise for the Whitsun Recess?

Mr. Crossman: I would like to consult my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about that. I think I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio should be back in this country relatively soon.

Sir Knox Cunningham: In regard to the proposed debate on the Common Market, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the information which will be given to hon. Members and the public will be that contained in a private speech made by the Prime Minister in a Committee room upstairs? If so, is he aware that this is a method which has been described by the Committee of Privileges as "a gross breach of confidence"?

Mr. Crossman: I seem to recall that the hon. and learned Gentleman made the same point last week to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The information which we are giving is the factual information about such subject as agriculture and the mobility of labour—the main topics on which decisions must be taken. That is the information being collected. In addition to that information, the Prime Minister said that, because Members were so interested in these two particular


speeches of his and of the Foreign Secretary, they would be made available to the House. But the hon. Gentleman should not confuse that with the information that is being given in the White Paper.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have important business to do.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Would the Leader of the House bear in mind that if the decision the Prime Minister announces is to apply for membership of the Common Market, then a debate which lasts for only two days would be entirely inadequate and inappropriate, remembering that we think it appropriate to allow four days to debate the Budget and since our decision in this matter will affect our future for a very long time?

Mr. Crossman: I will certainly bear in mind the views that have been expressed by hon. Members on this subject. This is a hypothetical question. We will have to consider this when we know what sort of statement is being made.

Sir C. Osborne: The Government have made up your mind, have they not?

Mr. Channon: Having announced the date for the Whitsun Recess, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not it will remain the Government's hope in future always to beam the Recesses in this way—backwards from the new Whit-sun holiday?

Mr. Crossman: This is a point which should be discussed through the usual channels. It is entirely a matter for the convenience of hon. Members. I am aware of the conflicting interests that exist, particularly in relation to school holidays. I should be able to give a considered view about this after there has been more consultation between the two sides of the House.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Secretary of State for Scotland held out to us the expectation that there would be a debate this month on the First Annual Report of the Highlands and Islands Development Board? As we do not appear to be having that debate—we have not even had

the Report yet—will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend to make a statement on the reasons for the delay?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir. I will certainly convey that message to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: As next week will be a busy one for the House, would the right hon. Gentleman consider saving a whole day on Wednesday by trying to persuade his right hon. Friends to withdraw the two Instruments which deprive electricians and local government officers of equal and fair wages in Scotland?

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman must remember that the decision to table these two Prayers was made by the Opposition. As they have chosen this subject for a Supply day, it is hardly likely that the Leader of the House would intervene in their decision.

NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION (MEMBERSHIP)

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement.
I am glad to say that the following have accepted my invitation to serve as members of the National Steel Corporation:

Chairman:
Lord Melchett, who was Chairman of the Organising Committee and previously a director of Hill, Samuel &amp; Co. Ltd.

Deputy Chairman:
Dr. H. M. Finniston, Technical Director of C. A. Parsons &amp; Co. Ltd. and Managing Director of International Research and Development Co. Ltd.
Mr. M. Milne-Watson, Chairman of Richard, Thomas &amp; Baldwins Ltd.
Mr. A. J. Peech, Chairman and Managing Director of United Steel Companies, Ltd.

Full-time members:
Lord Layton, Managing Director of the Steel Company of Wales.
Mr. Ron Smith, previously General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers.

Part-time members:
Mr. Raymond Brookes, Chairman and Managing Director of Guest, Keen &amp; Nettlefolds Ltd.
Alderman Sidney Harris, until recently employed on the shop floor in the steel industry.


Sir Cyril Musgrave, Chairman of the Iron and Steel Board.
Mr. Peter Parker, Director of Booker Bros., McConnell &amp; Co. Ltd., and Chairman of Booker Engineers &amp; Industrial Holdings Ltd.

Mr. Peech will, for the time being, remain Chairman of United Steel Companies Ltd. and will, after vesting, combine his deputy chairmanship of the Corporation with an important operational appointment in the industry. Alderman Harris and Sir Cyril Musgrave will each give substantially more time to the work of the Corporation than is normal for a part-time member. Further appointments will be made in due course. The formal appointments will be made at once. The National Steel Corporation will then be constituted and the Organising Committee will be dissolved.

The Government have decided that vesting date for the securities of the companies listed in Schedule 1 to the Iron and Steel Act, 1967, should be Friday, 28th July, 1967. I shall at once be signing an Order under Section 9 of the Act to give effect to this decision which means that the period between Royal Assent and vesting date will be rather shorter than for the nationalisation of any other major industry.

The Corporation and all others concerned will have a formidable task to complete the necessary preparation, but a good start has been made by the outstanding work of the Organising Committee, to which I would like to pay tribute. I am sure that this early vesting date will end uncertainty in the industry and clear the way for the structural changes which are generally agreed to be necessary and urgent.

Mr. Barber: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, first, that the vesting of this great industry in the State in July, and the issue of compensation stock consequent thereon, is bound to make even more difficult our economic recovery?
Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman give more information about the responsibilities of each of the deputy chairmen, or has this not yet been worked out?
Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the members whom he has appointed to the Board are implacable opponents of nationalisation and

believe that it will do irretrievable harm to the industry? In the light of this, has he ruled out completely the appointment of Mr. Niall Macdiarmid?

Mr. Marsh: I do not accept that the issue of this stock will cause economic difficulties internationally. If at any time the right hon. Gentleman felt able not to constantly propagate this line, that might be of help to us all.
Those whose appointments I have announced have all accepted appointment as members of the Corporation, their sole loyalty is to the Corporation and I have no doubt that they will exercise that loyalty.
One clearly cannot pre-empt the right of the Corporation, when it meets, to allocate the functions to be fulfilled. It would generally be believed, for example, that Mr. Ron Smith would be responsible for personnel and social policies, Lord Layton would be the commercial director of the Corporation, that the three deputy chairmen would allocate their duties, on the lines that Mr. Peech would co-ordinate the activities of the industrial groupings, with Mr. Michael Milne-Watson dealing with the administrative side and Dr. Finniston dealing with research and development.

Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked my last question, which was whether he has completely ruled out the possibility of the appointment of Mr. Niall Macdiarmid to the Board of the Corporation.

Mr. Marsh: The future of Mr. Macdiarmid and the question of other employees of the Corporation will, of course, be dealt with at a later date.

Mr. Mendelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread approval in the steel-producing areas at my right hon. Friend's announcement of this early vesting date and widespread conviction that there is much in his remarks about this removing the remaining uncertainty for the future of the industry?
In announcing these appointments and his reference to the fact that the members who have been appointed owe their sole loyalty to the industry, does he intend now to proceed to appoint some more full-time members to perform important


technical functions, members with experience of, and representing, workpeople at all levels in the industry, bearing in mind that the Corporation needs strengthening, particularly by the appointment of those who, during the last few years, have been wholeheartedly in support of the national ownership of this industry?

Mr. Marsh: I entirely accept that it would be intolerable to have anybody as a member of the Corporation who would be other than wholeheartedly in support of the Corporation and owed the Corporation his entire loyalty.
There will be further appointments, but there is a distinction between the Board of the Corporation and employees of the Corporation. I think that my hon. Friend has in mind the participation of workpeople in the industry still further. As he knows, Alderman Harris is probably the first shop floor member of any industry to be appointed to the Board of a nationalised industry. Ron Smith represents a direct trade union appointment. In addition, the Corporation is itself at the moment examining ways of getting a greater degree of worker participation in the industry.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: As to the further appointments to membership of the National Steel Corporation itself, can the Minister say whether these will all be to full-time membership or will further part-time members be appointed?

Mr. Marsh: The posts I have in mind at the moment are full-time appointments. It would be possible to appoint another one or two part-time members. I have no particular intentions in that direction at the moment. The part-time members are those whom I have announced, with the possibility of appointing others. Other announcements would be of full-time appointments.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the vesting day of the coal industry the Union Jack was hoisted on top of the buildings because the mines had become national property instead of a private interest? Will he consider doing that for the steelworks?

Mr. Marsh: It is an interesting proposition to which I should like to give

further thought and, perhaps, discuss with members of the Corporation.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: The right hon. Gentleman keeps harping on the alleged damage that will be done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) in criticising the Minister for the action of the Government in regard to debentures, but is he aware that the boot could very well be on the other leg, and that international criticism of the integrity of the country and its Government could well be very adverse, for reasons that have already been stated?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the Minister in a position to say where the new organisation will be housed? After vesting day, he will have no power to do anything about it, but up to vesting day he can give a direction. He will be aware that there have been suggestions that the Corporation is looking at highly expensive prestige premises, when I should have thought that it would have wanted working headquarters which would be more economical?

Mr. Marsh: I am always intrigued by the schizophrenic attitude of hon. Members opposite, who have campaigned that the industry should be treated as a commercial undertaking. One of the things that a commercial undertaking does is to consider where it will site its offices. It is certainly the intention of the Steel Corporation to ensure that it does not employ anywhere near the number of staff in London that the private companies did, nor to have anywhere near the number of offices that the private companies did. Whatever else the Corporation does, it will save a considerable amount of money by reducing some of the wasteful expenditure of the past.

Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend agree that he has enormous patronage? When he speaks of further appointments, can he assure the House that he has been able to draw from a sufficiently wide field of experience?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Not all Tories, in other words.

Mr. Marsh: Perhaps I may be able to answer both of my hon. Friends. On the first question, the Minister's powers of


patronage are frequently referred to and frequently exaggerated, and the references cause me acute embarrassment, but I can say that there is a very wide choice indeed. The people I have chosen have been chosen on their merits. They are the people I wanted. It would not be right for me to ask them their political views, but I think that if my hon. Friend looked closely at the position, he would not find that they were of any one particular view.

Mr. A. Royle: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what salaries the three full-time deputy chairmen will be paid?

Mr. Marsh: The figures were announced in the House. They range to £24,000 a year.

Mr. Burden: Is the Minister aware that a list of these appointments appeared in the Financial Times this morning? Would he not agree that it is unfortunate if such announcements are to be made in the Press before being made in the House? Can he give an assurance that this was in no way due to any disclosure by his Department?

Mr. Marsh: I would certainly give that assurance unequivocally. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House know tat once one starts informing a lot of people these things happen, regrettable though they are.

Mr. Leadbitter: If the Minister is correct in saying that he now has a wide choice of competent people to serve on the Board, does he not agree that it is, therefore, not necessary to appoint any person, no matter how competent, if he has a long-standing record of being militantly against nationalisation?

Mr. Marsh: That question raises a very wide and important issue. I believe that

people have the right to their own opinions until such time as they owe loyalty to a particular organisation. I would warn some of my hon. Friends that it would be a very dangerous line to suggest that views unacceptable to employers were a necessary disqualification of employees.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Was I right in thinking that not one name among those invited to serve on the Corporation represents the Scottish steel industry? If that is the case, can he say why?

Mr. Marsh: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. None of them represents any part of the industry. They are all appointees representing the British steel industry, which includes the northern part of it.

Mr. Rowland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of his hon. Friends will be glad that he is able to appoint people of industrial eminence from outside this industry as well as from inside it? Has he found it much easier to do so by virtue of the salary scales which he announced some weeks ago?

Mr. Marsh: Certainly, the salary scales, which are lower than some operating in industry, do open up a wide range of people from which to choose. It means, I think, that we have an injection of new experience and new background in the industry, which I believe people of all views would think very desirable.

Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As my right hon. Friend clearly misunderstood the main part of my question, may I ask him for a further explanation?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, but a point of clarification, which does happen occasionally in the House.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed [26th April] on Consideration of the Bill, as amended (in Standing Committee).

Clause 10.—(MAJORITY VERDICTS OF JURIES IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.)

Which Amendment was: In page 9, line 13, to leave out Clause 10.

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 21, stand part of the Bill.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I think that I am right in saying that I am the first speaker on either side in this debate who has not already addressed the House on this subject on Second Reading or in Committee. I was not forunate enough to be called on Second Reading, and I was not selected to serve on the Committee, although I sought to serve on it. However, as I am, I believe, the only Member who served on both the Tucker and the Morris Committees, and spent many days in considering evidence on many aspects of jury service, I hope that the House will permit me now to express my view.
At the beginning of August of last year, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolitan area informed the Home Secretary, I understand, that over the past three years he had known of six cases involving intimidation or corruption of a jury. In addition, according to the Home Secretary, there was some evidence —not extensive, according to him—of attempts to interfere with a jury in five cases over the rest of the country. As far as I know without any investigation otherwise, the Home Secretary accepted that information as correct, and on that evidence, and on that evidence alone, this fundamental change is being proposed.
The problem of attempts to intimidate or corrupt juries is not new. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has already referred to attempts of this kind during the last century. There were many attempts, and many of them were serious. The Mersey Committee in 1913 exhaustively examined all aspects of jury service and had before

it some evidence of so-called "nobbling". It considered the matter, and recommended no change in the unanimity rule. The Home Secretary said that the position has changed since then. I await evidence of that change. Has the suggested change occurred in the last year or two, or in more recent times?
The two Committees I have mentioned were appointed to deal with matters affecting juries—the Tucker Committee some years ago, and the Morris Committee about a couple of years ago. In neither case did the Home Secretary think that this problem, which is said to be so important, was worth referring to them for consideration and report. It was not within their terms of reference. Both Committees, of course, considered many different aspects, of jury service even though they were not specifically within their terms of reference. Indeed, the Morris Committee referred in paragraph 358 of its Report to the problem of majority verdicts as requiring consideration but stated, although it was not within its terms of reference, that it did not advance that view. That is the latest view to be put forward by a Committee.
The Lord Chancellor, in an excellent book on law reform, dealt with many pressing cases requiring law reform, but nowhere was there any suggestion that the unanimity rule should be breached. I wonder what the view of the Lord Chancellor is today. This has not been stated. All we have heard is that a letter was sent by the Lord Chancellor in which he is said to have conveyed what was then an erroneous view of the Lord Chief Justice.
The Criminal Law Review Committee in its Fifth Report, as recently as August, 1964, was asked to consider whether any revision of the criminal law was desirable to facilitate the continuance of a trial when a juror died or was discharged. So apparently as late as August, 1964, no suggestion was made to consider this problem. I hope the Home Secretary will appreciate that there have been a number of Reports by that Committee since that date. It would have been a simple matter to seek the advice of that body—a Committee which could have dealt with the matter expeditiously—or to have arranged for a Departmental Committee or to seek some form of investigation so that evidence could be taken, not only from the


police, but from all sources and a recommendation made on such evidence.
Why is the information given by the police sacrosanct and to be acted upon without any other inquiry? From what the Home Secretary told us last night there are eight High Court judges opposed to the change. Why is their opinion not taken into account? The Home Secretary says that that would have taken time, that there might not be an opportunity for further criminal justice legislation, and that it is difficult to obtain information because of the secrecy to which jurors are sworn. The Press have frequently found very little difficulty in interviewing jurymen and obtaining evidence from them. Surely these are poor excuses when a fundamental change is being made in our criminal law, a change which is not advocated or pronounced upon by any other body.
The Home Secretary spoke of the number of police needed to guard the jurors against possible interference. How does it follow that that supervision will still not be required if a determined person wants to try to "nobble" more than two jurymen? Supposing someone is nobbled and a jury disagrees. Then there is a second trial. It is difficult then to "nobble" someone on a second jury. Why is it difficult for a determined person to "nobble" three or four and not limit it to two?
I hay, had 45 years' experience at the Bar. I have been engaged in many jury trials, criminal and civil, over those years. Some of them, to use the Home Secretary's phrase, have been quantitative in character and recent. I think I am entitled to have some weight attached to my opinion from that experience. Of course there are cases of attempted intimidation, and always have been. I am sure they are few and far between. Personally I have never come across a case where a juror was "nobbled" or intimidated. I have seen many disagreements, but certainly in most cases one could well understand a disagreement taking place.
Figures have been given in regard to disagreements. They were not unexpected or alarming in any way. The problem was summarised in paragraph 357 of the Morris Committee's Report, which said:
The requirements in criminal cases that all 12 jurors must be in agreement on their ver-

dict makes it inevitable that there will be a number of disagreements. It seems to us that this need cause no concern unless disagreements occur so frequently as to indicate that the orderly administration of justice is being prejudiced. Indeed, it can be argued that the absence of a certain number of disagreements would itself be disturbing, since in the nature of things 12 individuals chosen at random are unlikely always to take the same view about a particular matter…
Surely the obvious reason for this proposed change is that the police are dissatisfied with the number of convictions and they have pressed the Home Secretary to make this change in order to obtain more convictions.
I regret that the Home Secretary who has been described as the finest Home Secretary we have had—and I agree and pay tribute to him—has yielded without any proper inquiry.

Mr. Edward Lyons: My hon. and learned Friend read paragraph 357 of the Morris Committee's Report. Would he care to read paragraph 358, which states:
It is nevertheless true that a disagreement, especially on a long case, can be a distastrous waste of time and money, and it could be argued from this that subject to certain safeguards majority verdicts should be accepted.

Mr. Weitzman: I have referred specifically to the view expressed by the Morris Committee—

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think Mr. Speaker might intervene for a moment. There are so far fifteen hon. Members wishing to speak in the debate on this Amendment. Interventions make for long speeches.

Mr. Weitzman: I specifically referred to the view expressed by the Morris Committee in the paragraph to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) referred. The Committee said in that paragraph that there could well be consideration of the important question of majority verdicts. Although it was not in its terms of reference it did not itself advance that view. It went on to highlight certain other ways in which juries can be protected. If my hon. Friend is to intervene, he should at least be accurate in his reference.
I believe that the principle that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty by evidence adduced by the prosecution and that the presumption of innocence continues until the jury finds otherwise is one of the most vital things in English justice. Nothing should be done which might—I emphasise the word "might" because of an observation made by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who is not at present in his place —which might infringe that principle. I believe the quality of the verdict afforded by the unanimity rule safeguards this.
If there is one dissentient on a jury, if one disagrees, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It may well be that that one may be right.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Would the hon. and learned Member agree with Lord Devlin that two dissentients mean that there is more than twice as much doubt as when there is only one dissentient?

Mr. Weitzman: The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone quoted from Lord Devlin's book. I do not know what the object was. Perhaps it was to show that Lord Devlin was on his side in supporting the case for majority verdicts. The Home Secretary also quoted a paragraph from Lord Devlin's book. Let us be fair and see what Lord Devlin said on the question of majority verdicts. He said this:
The sense of satisfaction obtainable from complete unanimity is itself a valuable thing and it would be sacrificed if even one dissentient were overruled. Since no one really knows how the jury works or indeed can satisfactorily explain to a theorist why it works at all, it is wise not to tamper with it until the need for alteration is shown to be overwhelming".
These are wise words from a wise counsellor. Surely even the Home Secretary would not assert that the need for alteration has been shown to be overwhelming.
4.30 p.m.
Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) said, there is the point that, with majority verdicts, a man acquitted of a serious crime on a majority verdict can go through life with the finger pointed at him—"You were acquitted by a ten to

two verdict. There were two people who thought you were guilty". This view was put forcibly by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West. I cannot improve upon his dissertation on this question. It is a most serious consideration.
The Clause has been put forward as assisting in the war against crime. It does nothing of the sort. It may well result in the chances of an innocent person's being convicted being increased. If there is the slightest danger of this, the Clause should be rejected. The way to guard against the corrupt or intimidated juror is by the adoption of the measures put forward by the Morris Committee. Clause 11 enacts some of these in the disqualification of ex-prisoners.
The Home Secretary could have gone further and provided, as the Morris Committee recommended, that ignorant and illiterate persons likely to be got at by outside influences should not serve on a jury. He could also have increased the penalties for attempting to interfere with a jury.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East referred to a paragraph which clearly sets out the suggestion of the Morris Committee highlighting these points as being points for consideration, points to be brought in to deal with any attempts at intimidating a jury or getting at any juror.
This provision involves such a change that the burden of proof is upon the Home Secretary to justify its necessity. He has not done so. The proposed change is unnecessary, and I hope that it will be rejected.

Mr. N. R. Wylie (Edinburgh, Pent-lands): It is with some diffidence that I take part in this debate. I intend to make only a very minor contribution. I am the only member of the Scottish Bar in the House. I think that it might be of interest to the House to know how the system works in Scotland, because, as the House will know, the majority verdict system has operated in Scotland for very many years. In Scotland it operates on a straight majority.
There are, however, certain fundamental differences which I think that the House should bear in mind before drawing too heavily on Scottish practice in innovating in the law of England. First, although this may be only a minor


matter, a Scottish criminal jury numbers 15. I understand that a criminal jury in England numbers 12.
A much more significant difference arises between the laws of evidence which each system requires. The requirements of the law of evidence in Scotland are so radically different from the requirements, as I understand them, of the law of evidence in England, that I suggest that the House should be very careful about innovating in majority verdicts or innovating in verdicts in the English criminal system.
As I understand the position in England, to obtain a conviction it is not necessary to have any corroboration. It is sufficient for a jury to accept the word of one credible witness as against the evidence of the accused, if indeed he gives evidence. That is not the case in Scotland. In every material particular in a criminal trial, it is essential in the law of Scotland that there should be corroboration—corroboration either by the evidence of another eye witness or evidence of facts and circumstances pointing in the same direction as the evidence of an eye witness.
This means that in effect the onus of proof on the Crown in Scotland is about twice as heavy as it is in England at present. That is a very material difference between the two systems.
I agree with what the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) said about the significance of the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence is a princple of the criminal law which is essential in any civilised community. Any innovation which prejudices the presumption of innocence is an innovation which the House should accept only on the clearest justification.
There are certain statutory exceptions in Scottish criminal law to the necessity for corroboration. Under the Deer Poaching Act and under the Salmon Poaching Act it was necessary, and think rightly so decided by the House, that corroboration should not be required, because, for certain practical reasons, one could not have wardens and others going round isolated areas in twos simply to satisfy the requirements of the criminal law. This is a matter which will have to be given careful consideration in the Countryside

Bill which is shortly to be considered by the Scottish Standing Committee.
The basic principle of the criminal law in Scotland is that the Crown cannot obtain a conviction on the evidence of one witness, however truthful, however reliable, because we have always taken the view that it is always possible to make a mistake in those circumstances, and, because of that view, it has always been regarded as essential that there should be corroboration.

Mr. Charles Doughty: Then how is it possible to obtain a conviction where a burglar has entered a house unseen and departed from it unseen but has committed the mistake of leaving all over the place, clearly and distinctly, his finger prints?

Mr. Wylie: It would not be possible under Scottish criminal law and practice to obtain a conviction in those circumstances.

Mr. Doughty: I prefer our own system.

Mr. Wylie: I am not expressing any views on the merits of the one system as against the other. Whereas under our system of evidence a majority verdict is justified and works, I think that in England, where these requirements of the laws of evidence are not so strict, the House should be very careful about modifying the unanimity rule, which undoubtedly is a safeguard standing the present law of evidence.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I have listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman with sincere attention. I realise the importance of the point he is making and the effectiveness of his criticism of some of the observations which have come from the Front Bench. The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) and I were members of the Royal Commission on the Police, where we learned this diligently and slowly, and almost with surprise, and learned how important a protection it was for the liberty of a Scotsman.

Mr. Wylie: It is an important matter. I have defended in courts martial in Scotland, where the rules of English law apply, and convictions have been obtained on evidence which would not satisfy a Scottish criminal court.
The only point I want to make—I do it with some humility and with the greatest respect—is that that is the position in Scotland. It is in that context that the majority verdict system works. These rules of evidence do not apply in England. Accordingly, I suggest that the House should be very careful about abolishing or modifying the unanimity rule.
Another point which is worthy of mention is the not proven verdict in Scotland. In some ways I have always regarded the not proven verdict as a more logical verdict than a not guilty verdict. The onus of proof being on the Crown and the presumption of innocence being a cardinal principle of our criminal law, it is for the Crown to prove the case. If the Crown has failed to prove the case to the satisfaction of the jury beyond all reasonable doubt, the charge has not been proved. So in that sense the not proven verdict is logical.
In a word or two, the Scottish system works in this way. If the jury is satisfied that the Crown has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt, it convicts. If, in the light of all the evidence, including the evidence of the accused where that is given, the jury is satisfied that the accused did not commit the crime, it returns a verdict of not guilty. When the jury takes the view that it is not satisfied that the accused has not committed the crime but it is, equally, not satisfied that the Crown has made out the case against the accused, it returns a not proven verdict. But the effect of the not proven verdict is to underline effectively in practice the onus of proof on the Crown to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, and, once again in our practice and procedure, the presumption of innocence is underlined and the liberty of the subject is preserved.
I respectfully suggest that, unless a very strong case for a variation of the unanimity rule has been made out, the House ought to reject any proposal which would innovate on that basic principle.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: The House will be grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) for having given us that valuable explanation of the differences between the Scottish system and

our own. Otherwise, there may be a temptation to regard the majority verdict system in Scotland as a useful guide to the change which we might make in England.
I speak as a layman, and feel rather like a juror listening to the final speeches of prosecuting and defending counsel—on this occasion, most of them prosecuting counsel. My right hon. Friend is under considerable pressure from hon. and learned Members of great skill and long experience. I have never served on a jury. I have never stood in the dock before a jury. Perhaps I am the least qualified among many hon. Members to express any opinion at all. Yet it is to persons like me that lawyers have to appeal. It is to persons like me that politicians have to appeal This is the voice of the citizen, sometimes misguided, sometimes irrational, sometimes sensible.
Last night, we listened to some moving appeals for retention of the unanimity rule. We were told that our present system had withstood the test of 600 years. I am irreverent about history when I think that it is no guide to modern thought. Whether it be 600 years of juries or 1,000 years of history, I am equally sceptical about whether it provides a basis—

Mr. Hale: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Houghton: No, not yet—about whether it provides a reliable guide to our appoach to modern conditions.

Mr. Hale: Will my right hon. Friend give way now, just for a moment? On what basis does he live in the modern world without at least 600 years of cultured ancestry contributing to the knowledge which he is now giving to the House?

Mr. Houghton: My hon. Friend has his own evaluation of 600 years of history, and, with respect, I have mine. I am a radical. I challenge all institutions with a critical eye. I want to know why they are here and what purpose they serve. The real trouble with this House and the country is that they are a good deal too conservative—and that applies to hon. Members on this side as well as on that.
What test has the unanimity rule stood? I believe that it has become part of


the mythology of English justice. I submit to the House that the change to the majority verdict may be necessary to save the repute of the jury system. No real test has been applied. Verdicts are reached behind closed doors. We know more of what goes on in the Cabinet than we do of what goes on in jury rooms. No one really knows the truth about the validity of the unanimous verdict. Occasionally, an overwrought juror may make an outburst afterwards which catches the headlines and shocks the conscience of the nation. I believe that it is a comfort to the troubled conscience of England that, when there is a unanimous verdict, justice must have been done even though it is not seen to have been done.
The real question is whether the unanimity rule now stands the test of modern conditions. This point was made very forcibly by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) last night. In the past, juries may have been great institutions to protect accused persons from corrupt judges. Now, the need seems to be to protect society from corrupt jurors and also from biased jurors. If the abolition of the jury system were before the House, which it is not, I would say that there was a serious case for consideration.
4.45 p.m.
The majority verdict, I agree, has some drawbacks. The main one, to my mind, is the slur that may be left on the name of an acquitted person when the jury was not unanimous in acquittal. But that probably touches on part of the mythology of the unanimity rule, because it is, I suppose, thought that an acquitted person is an innocent person. It does not necessarily follow. In considering some of the serious motoring offences, one may well have grave doubt not only about the reliability of the juries, but about the validity of their verdicts.
When two dissenting jurors have strong doubts in contrast to the view of the other 10, it may be desirable—I think it is—that we should know that.

Mr. Weitzman: Is not my right hon. Friend arguing that we ought to abolish juries? That is not the subject today.

Mr. Houghton: My hon. and learned Friend could not have been listening. I

said a moment or two ago that, if the abolition of the jury system were before the House, I would say that there was a serious case for it. I am not at the moment arguing for abolition of the jury. I am casting doubt on the unanimity rule. I believe that there is a good deal of hypocrisy about it, and I am trying to bring it into the open.
I am sure that the processes of reaching a unanimous verdict in some cases, and in some juries, would not stand up to the light of day. Although we do not know what goes on behind the closed doors of the jury room, we do know about some of the people who serve on juries. Another provision of the Bill is designed to exclude from jury service some most undesirable people who have been eligible for it in the past, and, no doubt, have served on juries. We now propose to exclude them from service because, clearly, they are not proper persons to be there.
If justice is to be done, we ought to see far more of how it is done. This is the one black spot on the whole jury system. We do not know the processes by which juries reach their decision. A friend of mine who is a former Member of this House was a member of a jury some years ago when two men were charged at the same time. He told me that in accordance with the accepted trade union practice the jury had reached a negotiated settlement. I think that one is entitled to cast some doubt on that method of arriving at a verdict.
I am concerned with the reputation of an acquitted person, as I am sure the whole House is, but we must weigh that drawback, even though it may be the drawback of truth, against the present unanimous verdicts, which are probably not true. The greater truth about the working of our judicial system, the better it will be. Of course, the innocent may suffer, though one would hope that the truly innocent person would be acquitted by a unanimous verdict, but under the present system it is the guilty who go free.
Even under a majority verdict of acquittal the accused person would go free, but under the present system there are strong grounds for believing that a number of guilty persons go free, and that the majority verdict would enable the cause of justice to triumph over the


corrupt juror. It may overcome the dissent of a biased or prejudiced juror, and it may spare some jurors all the agony of a strong pressure to fall in with the majority and present a facade of agreement.
That is why, unpopular as these opinions are—as I can see from looking around the Chamber—I believe that they lead to the conclusion that the introduction of the majority verdict is probably necessary to save the repute of the jury system.

Sir Douglas Glover: I am very glad to be able to speak to the Amendment, because, unlike the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and every other hon. Member who has spoken so far, I have been a juryman, and I have also been a foreman of a jury. As everybody else in the debate seems to have been telling the jury how to reach a conclusion, and nearly every speech was made by a lawyer, it is just as well that at least one contribution should be made by somebody with practical experience now that we are dealing with the problems of the jury system.
I do not think that the Home Secretary or any of those who have spoken in favour of the majority verdict have in any way made out their case. It is all right for the radical right hon. Member for Sowerby to say that he is not concerned with tradition and history, but the fact remains that an Englishman has expected that if he was tried in a court of law in this country the decision would be the unanimous collective decision of 12 of his peers, who would decide whether or not he was guilty.
I do not think that because there have a few disturbing cases in London—I think that the figure is six, with possibly five others—there is a sufficient case at the moment for altering a system that is so well tried and has run for so long. Although I admire the Home Secretary for trying to modernise a great deal of our legal structure, majority verdicts will apply not only to cases in London, where bribery of a juryman may have occurred, but all over the country, in every court—not to just six cases in three years in the courts in London. It will apply to every case where people are tried in their local community. In dozens of cases a majority verdict will probably be recorded

and it will be known in the community that at least two members of the jury thought that the defendant was guilty.
Having sat in a jury room, I should like to put a totally different line of approach to the Home Secretary. I am very much afraid that what he is trying to avoid will be brought about by the alterations. Except for Members of Parliament, the bulk of the people are fairly conformist. When a case has reached the point of decision, and the jury file out and into the jury room, there is a great deal of atmosphere, of embarrassment, with nobody wishing to express a view. The foreman is not quite certain whether he should tell them what they should do or wait until they have told him what they think. They wonder how to operate.
In many cases, because of that atmosphere, it may be that one or two people have a slight doubt in their minds, but do not want to be the first to speak, and the foreman then says, "Well, I think that we are all agreed. It looks as though, on the evidence, and if I could just sum up briefly, that this man is guilty"—or that he is not guilty, as the case may be. Those with the slight doubt do not speak, because they tell themselves that it was a very slight doubt and that they do not want to make an exhibition of themselves. Let us not forget that there are only 12 people in a room.
What will happen if majority verdicts are introduced? I shall know when I go into the jury room that it is respectable to be a non-conformist. In fact, it is almost expected. Once I have said, "Mr. Foreman, I am sorry. I do not agree with what you say", almost invariably somebody else will say, "I agree with him." Now we have two people who have stated their views. Before one knows where one is in that jury room the jury will be divided, six to six. Perhaps after a certain amount of argument it will be brought down to nine to three, but once one has expressed one's deep dissatisfaction with the collective view it will be very difficult to get it altered.
Therefore, I think that there will be many more cases where the jury say that they are unable to agree on their verdict.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: That is more especially true if,


as will happen once this amendment in the law is made, the jury are told by the judge before they retire that they need not agree.

Sir D. Glover: Exactly. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because that was the point I was trying to make.
When one goes into the jury room at present one knows that one must try to reach a unanimous view. As soon as that pressure is taken off the individual juryman's shoulders, there will be far more cases finishing up in retrial.
Another thing that may happen with a strong foreman is that he may sit down and say, "Well—all agreed? Or are there two of you against? Well, if it is 10 to two, get the cards out. It is no use arguing. We are all right." That is exactly what will happen, because why should the jury argue? Why should the other two, who may be right, try to convince the other 10 that they have formed their view on a wrong conclusion, because it is all settled? The foreman will say, "We need not get any different decision. You two can stick to your views. We need not bother to argue, though we might have a discourse on which horse will win the Derby, because we must spend two hours over it." That is the sort of thing that goes on in jury rooms.

Sir John Hobson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will consider the situation of a jury which goes out at 5 o'clock in the afternoon at, say, Lincoln when the next buses all go at six and they must wait two hours if anybody is going to stand out against them.

Sir D. Glover: With my right hon. and learned Friend, I think that that sort of thing probably sometimes, even now, influences a jury's decision.
5.0 p.m.
I have some sympathy with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said last night. I am not for a moment saying that there is anything sacrosanct about 12 good men and true, but this system has stood the test of time and the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting an improvement. There is no other system which has gained the respect of the people

as that of the unanimous verdict of a jury in this country.
I suppose that throughout history a person or two has been "got at". I am sure that jurymen were "got at" before. There is the story of the man who was charged with murder and who, after the jury had been out for 10 hours and brought in a verdict of manslaughter, was visited by a juryman who told him, "I did what I could for you, Jim", to which the imprisoned man replied, "Well, you took a long time about it". The juryman replied, "I know, but the rest wanted to find you not guilty".
If the examples in which there was interference with members of the jury were widespread, and not confined to just these big cases, the House of Commons would give a great deal more sympathy to what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing than he is getting in this debate. He has not made out his case. He will cause many people to have to go through their lives with a slur on their name which they would not otherwise have had. While the theory is that every Englishman is innocent until proved guilty, under the new system everyone will be innocent, although two people will consider him guilty. That will be known and it will gradually spread over a wide section of our society.
I do not think that this provision will make society more law abiding, because it will be possible to say of people who would otherwise appear to be perfectly respectable that two people had thought them to be guilty. That will not increase respect for the law, which is the right hon. Gentleman's aim, but reduce it.
At the same time, these proposals will leave many people who would otherwise have been found not guilty with a slur on their names. The right hon. Gentleman will find that, because of what I have explained about what happens in the juryroom, courts will deal with far more cases in which a jury is unable to reach a conclusion. I hope that even at this stage he will consider withdrawing the Clause, because I am sure that it is not in the interests of the nation.

Mr. Victor Yates (Birmingham, Lady-wood): I happen to be the only hon. Member on this side of the House who felt that he must vote against the Clause in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton)


said that we knew more about what happened in the Cabinet than we did about what happened in a jury room. Some may, and I wish that I did. I have a feeling that the Cabinet made a decision on this matter before it ever came to the House. It is my view that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, much as I respect and admire him for his courageous stand, was not open to argument in Committee, was not open to be convinced that the Government's decision was wrong.
As a layman, at times I found it very difficult to understand the lawyers in Committee. I rather offended the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) when I suggested that the lawyers ought to get together to decide where they stood before coming into Committee.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that laymen should also get together and decide where they stand? In that event, we should have a unanimous verdict.

Mr. Yates: Unfortunately, there were only a few laymen on that Committee. Most of the hon. Members there were lawyers. I felt that after all Shakespeare was right when, in one of his plays, he said that if we wanted justice the first thing we had to do was to hang all the lawyers.
As a layman, I am concerned that we do not change the system which means that persons are regarded as innocent until all 12 members of the jury think otherwise. My right hon. Friend has mentioned cases, as did the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) in Committee. The hon. and learned Member must know from his experience of the whole of the Midlands that there is no evidence of any corruption of this nature and that all our legal friends in the Midlands agree that the present system is working satisfactorily. Where is the evidence which demands that because something has happened in London, Birmingham and the rest of the Midlands should be subjected to change?

Mr. Percy Grieve: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that in Committee I cited one specific case—and I concede at once that it was only one—in which I myself was concerned in

Northampton, when, in a case in which I was the presiding judge, someone attempted to bribe a juror and, fortunately, was brought to justice.

Mr. Yates: It is true that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned one case, but one case is no reason for changing the whole basis of the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) said yesterday that people were demanding this change. Where is the evidence for that? The people have never been consulted about whether there should be a change of this nature. As a layman, I am not convinced that the proposed change would result in greater justice. I am not opposed to experiments, but an experiment of this kind ought to be based on evidence, and I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence. I am very disturbed by the prospect of innocent persons being convicted. I would rather that a few guilty persons went free than that one innocent person should be convicted. I doubt whether the change will lead to more justice.
In Committee, my right hon. Friend said that he thought that hon. Members should speak freely and that they would. I think that they did, but there is not much point in speaking freely if one cannot vote freely. I count myself a very loyal supporter of the Government—it has been a long time since I offended—but on this issue, which is not something on which the whole basis of the Government depends, which affects the freedom of individuals, we ought to be allowed to have a free vote.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone feels that he can go into the Lobby with a clear conscience, I ought to be free to go into the opposite Lobby, also with a clear conscience. I wonder why my right hon. Friend did not feel that this was an issue on which he ought to ask, as clearly in the House as he did in Committee, that we should have a free vote. There may be something in what some of my legal friends have said, but I sat through those hours in Committee, and I did not feel convinced by the evidence, although I hope that my mind was open to receive it. For that reason, I would not change my view, even if all the judges and lawyers of England had supported this.
I want more evidence. I do not find this evidence. The ordinary lay person, who will question this move, will not see justice done if, to take one example, a man is convicted, with two people for him on the jury. That person will go through life with the grievance that there was some doubt, probably a big doubt, about his case. I have not been a magistrate, and I know nothing about the workings of juries, but I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone cast an unfavourable reflection upon juries. It sounded to me, in Committee, as it did yesterday, that he would like to see the whole system wiped out.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member will at least do me the courtesy of recalling that I said both in Committee and yesterday that the jury was one of the most venerable of our institutions and that I thought it one of the great defences of our liberty and I wished to preserve it. Whatever I may have sounded like, when the hon. Gentleman reads HANSARD he will see that I said this on both occasions.

Mr. Yates: I realise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is very clever and can be very plausible—

Mr. Hogg: I hope that the hon. Member is not suggesting that I said one thing and meant another, because if so, I hope that he will either say so plainly or withdraw that remark.

Mr. Yates: I accept that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said some nice things about juries, but he did talk about picking them out of a hat by a pin, and cast some sort of reflection upon them. In one sentence he may have said some nice things, but in another sentence he cast reflections upon juries. I do not think that this is the issue. If I had to choose between having 12 judges or 12 legal persons on a jury, or 12 ordinary lay persons, I know what I would prefer. I would prefer the ordinary lay person, the man-and-woman-in-the-street, who has some kind of intuition about justice.
This is a great safeguard of our liberties. If one says to 12 people, "You must be unanimous", justice must be done. It is a pity that my right hon. Friend did not agree not to press this until there was some evidence on which

to base an experiment. I hope that the Government will feel that those of us who feel deeply and strongly on this side of the House ought to be as free as Members are on the other side. This is where I am in complete agreement with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We should have the right to vote freely on a matter which may affect the life of the citizen.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I had been disposed to support the Home Secretary on this matter, but I am bound to say that after what I have just heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates) I am minded to abstain. It seems quite wrong that, whereas we are absolutely free to vote, hon. Members opposite, who feel very deeply in their consciences on this matter, are not free. I had understood the matter in a different light. I had understood that there was to be a free vote. If there is not that very much affects my mind.
However, I shall not go into the Lobby against the Home Secretary under any circumstances, for the reasons which I shall give. I am not convinced by anything I have heard that the reason why the Bill is necessary is because there is widespread "nobbling" of juries. That case has not been sufficiently sustained. My reasons are somewhat different, and, I think, rather deeper. They are these. The jury is a very ancient institution with a history of about 600 years, but it has depended for its operation on the fact that it has hitherto been drawn from a relatively narrow section of society.
It is, in the words of Lord Devlin, whom it is obligatory to quote in these debates:
… middle class, middle brain and middle of the road.
It has therefore, all the virtues and all the drawbacks, of homogenity. It has its prejudices and its quirks. It has, in the view of some people, too keen a sense of preservation of property, and in the view of others it is too prejudiced in favour of motor car drivers. Whatever its drawbacks may be, it has worked because it thinks in broadly the same way.
Now all that is to be changed. When I first received the attack of the National


Council of Women, four or five years ago, objecting very strongly to the paucity of women on juries I said that if this went on the unanimity rule would be dead. I did not think that my prophetic words would prove to be true quite so quickly. But I was convinced that logically, that would inevitably occur. If one once starts examining the qualifications for jury service it is absolutely indefensible in logic, although it works very well in practice.
There is no logical defence for the qualifications of the jury as it stands. It produces a class jury of a fairly narrow kind, but it is one with a collective thought and attitude. Now that will go, as a result of this attack upon the qualifications, done with the best of motives. I am sure that we will very shortly have universal sufferage in the jury system. This is a difficult argument to deploy, but once one has that, I am convinced that one will not have that unanimity or outlook or mind which makes the unanimity rule work. One is enormously widening the approach of new jury men; one is enormously widening not only in matters of class, but also in matters of race.
In the past, in one respect at least, the need to be tried by one's peers was always recognised in our jury system. One had to be tried by people who thought alike, and when there was a rare bird, like a nobleman, he would not be tried by common clay. He was to be tried by his fellow noblemen, who understood the way that his mind worked, and what his ideals were. This was a primitive recognition of the philosophy that I am trying to put forward, that once one gets away from this middle class, middle brain jury, one will not get, in practice, the degree of unanimity, common thought, common philosophy and common direction with all its faults, and there were many, but with its enormous virtues, which were perhaps greater.
Because we must recognise the march of time and realise that if this enormous extension of the jury qualification is imposed the jury will no longer be anything like what it has been in its 600 years' history, sadly and regrettably we have to desert the unanimity principle.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Would my hon. and learned Friend relate what he says about the middle-road,

middle-brain jury system to America? The Americans do not select their juries in the way that we do, yet they have not had any undue difficulty in achieving unanimity.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: They have enormous jury difficulties. I never care to compare the laws In these ways because there are so many other imponderables and things which are incomparable. We cannot transplant a small section of the criminal law of another country into our own. We can transplant all or nothing. That was the burden of the excellent speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie).
I would merely refer my hon. Friend to the tremendous number of challenges and the difficulties which the Americans have in empanelling juries. This makes me think that we should not readily adopt their experience. As for the qualifications, I imagine that, like everything else in the criminal system of the United States, they vary very considerably from State to State. Therefore, I could not give my hon. Friend a direct answer, anyhow.
However, I am convinced that the situation is radically changed by the proposals made for widening jury qualification. For that reason alone, I am disposed to support the Home Secretary. My only misgiving is whether it would not have been better to wait and see whether what I fear will happen does happen; whether it would not have been better to have postponed implementing this proposal for some time; whether it would not have been better to see perhaps a great number of people acquitted who should be convicted, which I am sure is what would happen if we preserved the unanimity rule plus the immense broadening of the qualification. Perhaps we should suffer a bit before we change it. On the whole, I think not.
I am disposed to believe that, with the modern jury as we are to see it in future we can no longer afford—I will not say the luxury—the privilege of unanimity.

Mr Arthur Davidson: I wish to make only a short speech in support of the new Clause because I had the privilege of speaking in Committee.
Yesterday and today we have heard some sincere and passionate and, indeed, emotional speeches in favour of the jury system. None was more passionate than


that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates). We have been told that our jury system is the envy of the world. That may well be. But it is the system which is the envy of the world and not necessarily the unanimity of the system. By adopting the proposals made in the Clause we shall not be altering the essential elements of the system.
We have also been told that the jury system is part of our heritage and of what we are proud to call "the British way of life". This is true. But it is equally true that part of contemporary British life is the emergence of the highly organised criminal syndicate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House say that "nobbling" of juries has taken place. The opportunities and facilities for "nobbling" have never been so great because the resources of the modern criminal syndicate have never been so great. That is why the problem is particularly relevant at this moment.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: How does my hon. Friend reconcile that view with the Home Secretary's statement that there have been six doubtful cases in London in three years and none at all in the rest of the country?

Mr. Davidson: I think that the Home Secretary answered that himself. It is impossible to say how prevalent "nobbling" is. But it is well known that these criminals, because they have the resources, men and facilities, methodically and calculatingly attempt, almost as a business operation, to approach juries. They are not deterred by any undue reverence for the jury system.
The Home Secretary has frequently been criticised in the House, as other Home Secretarys have been, for not acting quickly enough. Whenever a prisoner climbs over the wall at Wormwood Scrubs and escapes and the Home Secretary announces that an inquiry is to be held, hon. Members say, "But why have you acted so late?". I am happy that for once we have a Home Secretary who has decided to act sooner rather than later. If jury nobbling became extremely prevalent, which it could well become, there would be many cries of outrage by hon. Members urging the Home Secretary to act in the way in which he has acted.
I think that it was the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Sir D. Renton) who, in an intervention yesterday, said that if we adopted the majority verdict system it would make it easier for newspapermen to interview jurymen. I do not know what his reasoning was, but I think that it is fair to say to the Home Secretary—and I say it as a newspaper lawyer—that the urge to interview jurymen after the case will be irresistible. I am not saying that he should legislate for it, but he should bear it in mind as a possibility.
The Home Secretary should be commended for taking a bold but not popular decision and a further step in the direction of halting crime before it becomes a menace not only in London, but in the provinces.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I should not like this afternoon to pass without making my protest against the proposal which has been made without, in my view, any evidence or information to support it. What is the evidence or information upon which we are being asked to take this decision? There has been a relatively small number of disagreements. There has been some very thin evidence of nobbling of and getting at jurors. The judges have been asked for their views, and they have given them, although they are rather more qualified than we heard at the beginning.
5.30 p.m.
I should have thought that it would have been very much better if that inquiry had been directed to the recorders and chairmen of sessions, who deal with 90 per cent. of criminal cases. It is often not remembered that judges, especially in areas where there are Crown Courts, who deal with the serious crime go to an assize town and try the murder which has occurred, two or three buggeries, perhaps a sexual crime, and a death by dangerous driving; and that is the end of the criminal calendar for them. Those are not the types of cases in which we are likely to have any trouble with majority verdicts or unanimous verdicts—

Mr. Charles Doughty: My hon. Friend has omitted the most typical and difficult one of all, which is robbery with violence.

Mr. Miscampbell: Certainly, but, by and large, High Court judges are dealing with a very small section of crime.
The one possible reason for a change to majority verdicts was referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) in that, in two or three years' time, we may change the qualifications for jury service so that they correspond exactly with the electoral roll.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: When my hon. Friend refers to changing to majority verdicts, does he mean changing to majority verdicts or changing to what are quite inaccurately described in the Bill as majority verdicts, a majority being half plus one?

Mr. Miscampbell: As I should object to proportions of even ten to two, I should not want to encourage anyone to think that I should like to see a proper majority verdict as in Scottish cases.
The one possible reason why we should at least keep an open mind is that we all know that, within the next two or three years, we may turn to a situation where everyone on the electoral rôle, good, bad or indifferent, is a possible juror. It is possible that that situation will cause difficulty in two or three years' time, but that is not now.
A number of hon. Members have talked about our varying sessions and have asked if anyone has an idea how many disagreements there are at, say, Blackpool Sessions or at Liverpool Crown Court. If anyone had the number, he would still be unable to say why the juries had disagreed. Where juries disagree, there is no evidence to suggest that it is because of one or two perverse jurors, and no one has any idea whether they disagree in proportions of ten to two, eleven to one, or come out disagreeing half a dozen one way and half a dozen the other. We have not got that information.
I do not think that we should go too far in exploring American experience. However, that experience gives us a clue as to how we can find out the information which we want.
Clause 10 should be rejected now. We should reject it with an open mind because it may be that we shall have to reconsider it later. If we come to reconsider it, let us do it on the basis of evidence, because that evidence is easily

available. However, that evidence should not be obtained by "bugging" jury rooms. There was trouble in the United States when that was tried. I suggest that every disagreement should be recorded and reported to the Lord Chancellor, and that the clerk of assize or quarter sessions should ask the foreman of the jury to write on a piece of paper the proportions in which the jury disagreed.
That piece of paper could be put into a sealed envelope and not shown to the presiding judge. Then the judge himself should be asked for his independent view of whether it had been a proper disagreement on which he could say that the jury could reasonably have come to that conclusion and that he did not think it perverse. If those three pieces of information were brought together over a period of two or three years, I believe that the House could come to a rational decision on the many questions which inevitably arise.
We do not know any basic reason for changing. We cannot give rational bases for any of our changes. For that reason I hope that, with open minds, we might postpone the matter now for two or three years while information is gathered together and brought before the House so that we can then take a reasonable and sensible decision.
I am sure that that would be the right way to go about it, though I have little hope that, at the end of the day, we shall follow that course. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates) wondered why there was not to be a free vote tonight. The reason is simple. If the House had a free vote, this Clause would be thrown out neck and crop, and quite rightly, too.

Mr. John Lee: Like the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell), to whom I listened with great interest, I am a lawyer. I suppose, inevitably, this must tend to be a lawyer's debate. I have an additional qualification in that I once served as a stipendiary magistrate and, in my first week of office, had to take a summary of evidence in a capital charge. I suppose that that could be described as being thrown in at the deep end.
In the first trial of Alger Hiss, Judge Kaufman used the phrase when endeavouring to get the jury to agree after


several hours of deliberation that the jury was "a composite body". In the second trial, when it looked as if a similar situation would arise, Judge Goddard used another phrase which is worth quoting to the House. Having spoken about the size of the jury, he said:
The object of the jury system is to secure a unanimous verdict through the exchange of views, reasons and arguments among the several jurors.
The crux of the argument against this Clause is nothing to do with the number of jurors, whether it be 12 or, as a result of discharges, 11 or 10, or even the seven permitted during the last war. What is important is that the Clause challenges for the first time the corporate nature of the jury. When a jury is sent out to consider a verdict, the members of the jury are not sent out to twelve different jury rooms to consider by themselves and come back, as it were, to ballot on the decision. They are sent out to exchange views and, possibly, to change sides in the course of arguing among themselves, and they must be prepared to justify their decisions one to another.
That is why I felt that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was so wrong when he seemed inclined to disregard or minimise the importance, as an indication of reasonableness of doubt, of the fact that one juror might hang out.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), whom we had the pleasure of hearing as an ex-juror, made the point very well earlier on. Unless the one juror is corrupt, and I recognise that there is that risk, but it is not a new one, and decides to dig in his toes and not go along with the verdict of the rest must be subjected to a great deal of pressure in an effort to reach agreement. One can imagine the rest of the jury, after two or three hours, saying, "Mr. Snooks, here we are. The rest of us have agreed. You are wasting our time in this fashion. You are just being obstinate and pigheaded."
I submit that it represents a considerable degree of hardihood to stand out against that number of persons, and is stretching the law of coincidence too much to suggest that two people are necessarily just perverse or obstinate and pigheaded when they are not prepared to follow the opinions of other people.
It may well be that there is a danger of corruption, but I do not think that this Clause will make very much difference. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been at pains to point out that what we are dealing with now—and it is a disturbing phenomenon which concerns us all—is the organised criminal master mind with considerable resources at his disposal. But it really suggested that although he is able to bribe two members of the jury his resources will fall short of enabling him to bribe yet another member? Is it really suggested that the criminal mind will not be aware of the way in which he can get round this situation if only he applies himself to it?
One other serious objection to this proposal seems to me that for the first time we will need some authentication of the proceedings in the jury room. It may be said that this ought not to be difficult, but one has only to think of some of the extraordinary things that have happened in recent years when a jury has returned with a seemingly unanimous verdict. The other day, for example, the foreman of the jury gave a verdict of not guilty and a lady sitting on the back row of the jury called out, "Hey, that is not our verdict".
If that can happen when the situation is supposed to be simple and all that is required is complete agreement amongst the jury, it is easy to see the kind of difficulty which might arise in a long and complicated case when one has to find out whether the jury really were nine to three or 10 to two in favour or against, whichever is the case.
The Clause makes no provision for this, and as far as I can see there are no rules of procedure to be followed in the jury room, even supposing it were possible to enforce them. I think that it will be extremely difficult to be satisfied that the jury really were divided by no more than is permitted to return a vaid verdict.
5.45 p.m.
I turn now to another objection of a different kind. This concerns the application of the death penalty. At the moment, the death penalty is suspended for murder, but there is no certainty that it will not be revived. The death penalty can still be imposed for treason, and with the situation in Rhodesia as it is, the question of the death penalty for high


treason is not even now entirely academic. Could anybody, even the most robust retentionist feel satisfied about imposing the death penalty with the knowledge that perhaps two members of the jury feel that the charge has not been made out?
The duty placed on the Home Secretary is difficult enough in this sort of case. As an abolitionist, I fervently hope that my right hon. Friend will never again be confronted with the possibility of having to consider whether the death penalty should be carried out. I do not think that this is the kind of burden that we ought to impose on the Home Secretary, but there is a risk of it being imposed if another House of Commons, with a different viewpoint, decides that the imposition of the death penalty ought to be revived.
I come now to the crux of my objection. The only rational justification for the Clause is that it is designed to minimise, though even its protagonists do not claim that it will eliminate the possibility of expense and inconvenience resulting from retrials. Reference has already been made to the small percentage of cases which go for retrial. One hon. Member yesterday referred to the fact that it is the practice, after there have been two "hung juries" for the case to be dropped. Why is this principle regarded as sacrosanct? I think that I am right in saying that until comparatively recently this was not so. Indeed, I checked this point with one of the Treasury counsel at the Old Bailey and I was told that in a fairly recent case where there was strong evidence of subornation in one of the two successive juries the case was prosecuted for a third time and resulted in a conviction.
Surely that is the much simpler method to adopt. One would not, of course, normally wish to proceed with a case for a third time, quite apart from the question of expense, since even if only one juryman hangs out in two trials there is sufficient evidence of doubt, but if it is really suggested that corruption is the cause of a disagreement we still have a simple solution available to us. There is no need to change the law. All that is necessary is to go forward for a third trial. I think that this is a far more reasonable thing to do. I know that it has its disadvantages. We know that the criminal

courts are congested with the amount of work outstanding, but I submit that this is a more reasonable and sensible thing to do than to change the very basis of our civil liberties.
I am extremely unhappy about the way in which the Government have chosen to introduce this Clause. If my right hon. Friend cannot agre to withdraw it, I hope that he will at least consider introducing it on an experimental basis, and in the meantime will give some thought to the very interesting and constructive suggestions made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell). We would like to know more about the basis on which juries disagree. We certainly want a good deal more justification before embarking on what I regard as an extremely perilous course.

Mr. Doughty: Time is getting short, and I propose to be brief. In the few words that I have to say I shall explain why it is my intention to go into the Division Lobby with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) ahead of the Secretary of State to support what I consider to be a Clause which is required under present-day circumstances.
I agree with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said earlier about what is to happen when the jury system is changed. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend, and I adopt his argument. Because time is short I shall not repeat what he said, but that concerns the future of the jury system.
We have had a lot of emotion and odd cases dragged in about the past history of juries. This is entirely irrelevant to the position which we have to consider today. Perhaps I might remind those who go back over the centuries that they need not go back as far as that. Until the last war there were four courts at the Old Bailey, and in the near future there will be 18. It is true that under the new Act London is slightly enlarged, and that this may have some bearing on that point, but it shows one of the problems with which the country is faced. We represent the country in this House, and the Home Secretary is responsible for maintaining law and order, and this includes the proper conviction of criminals when there is proper evidence on which they can be convicted.
The police, whose job it is to carry out that duty, already have sufficient handicaps, leaving aside the question of the shortage of numbers. They are not allowed to question a suspect unless he knows that he need not answer. Many refuse to do so until they have seen a solicitor, which they do not have, anyway. The jury is told that it must be unanimous and sure of its verdict and, finally, when the conviction is secured, probably the Court of Criminal Appeal quashes the conviction. It is worse than the maze at Hampton Court to get inside a prison unless one pleads guilty, and even then the sentence will probably be reduced afterwards.
One reason for my support of the Clause is the "four Cs"—criminals, corruption, cranks and clots. Criminals are referred to in the next Clause, which I think is the least important. If a man previously convicted of a serious offence is on a jury he will be very shocked by another type of crime. They run in grooves and outside that groove they shout for a conviction. Clause 11 is difficult to enforce, because, perhaps rightly, when a person leaves prison he may change his name and his character.
There is a different type of criminal in serious cases nowadays. We now have organised crime for the first time. The reasons may be our betting and gaming laws or the increased amount of public money—there are differences of view about it. However, there are people who organise crime and know their followers and are prepared to go to any lengths to protect them from conviction and get them out of prison if they are convicted. These are the people to whom the Home Secretary must face up in legislation.
They are prepared, by bribery or threats, to intimidate juries. It is useless to say that there have been only six cases in three years. We cannot know exactly, because once a jury has finished it is considered improper to ask its members their reasons for the verdict. Recently, when one emotional woman wanted to change her verdict after it had been given, the Court of Criminal Appeal rightly held that it could not inquire into what had happened in the jury room—

Mr. John Lee: I am listening with respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman's view, but does he not think that the mere fact that that could happen shows that, with majority verdicts, the Court of Criminal Appeal will be drawn into arguments on what happened in the jury room?

Mr. Doughty: Not for a moment. This is a numerical matter and nothing else. The reasons why one or two people may have disagreed on a conviction or acquittal cannot be discussed in the court below or anywhere else.
Unanimity is not sacrosanct. If a person is tried before magistrates—not stipendiary magistrates or recorders—the verdict is by a majority. If they are convicted, and their appeal goes to quarter sessions—there may be a chairman there, but the rest are magistrates—that verdict is a majority one. If a case goes to another place in its judicial capacity, that verdict would be by a majority. It is the same in civil matters. In one of the longest and most tedious cases in which I was concerned, we lost before the puisne judge. All three judges of the Court of Appeal were in favour, and another place reversed that verdict by three to two. We had the majority, but we lost the case. Those who say that unanimity is part of the English law are entirely wrong.
On juries, who are not selected for judicial knowledge or experience of life, there is the occasional crank. Referring to individual cases does not teach a principle, but I know of a case in which somebody inadvertently left his fingerprints on the house which he had recently burgled. It was clear and unambiguous and was compared with that of the accused, and there was no doubt, but one heard through the grapevine that one juror said, "All this stuff about fingerprints is hocus pocus. All our fingerprints are the same. Look at mine. Look at yours. If you can tell me the difference, I would be obliged. I will not convict him on that evidence"—

Mr. John Lee: What happened at the retrial?

Mr. Doughty: The retrial took about seven minutes, of which it took him two minutes to walk to the dock and two minutes to walk down. There was a conviction. The man has now been released—

Mr. Peter Tapsell: Is my hon. and learned Friend arguing that the proportion of cranks has increased in the last 600 years?

Mr. Doughty: I did not use either of those phrases—"increased" or "600 years". I carefully said that I am not dealing with the future or the past—whether it be 600 years or one year ago. I am dealing with the present. We must consider the present. That is the type of person whom I call the crank. There are a number of other examples.
Then there is the person who is stupid, as a number of the population are. They see a person whom they do not know with a list of convictions as long as his arm, who has been caught red-handed, and they say, "Poor man. Look how decent he looks and he has a wife and two children. How could I deprive his wife and two wee bairns of him by taking away his liberty. No, I am not that hard-hearted." That is the type of juror that I call the clot, and those are my four C's.
I do not criticise the jury system. I believe in it, except for two faults—that, in long fraud cases, it is difficult for a jury to understand complicated documents and accounts and then decide the question, and, in motoring cases, particularly those involving drink, they are unreliable, which is why we have had to pass the legislation which is now going through the House. Otherwise, the system is good.
I am not in favour of majority verdicts as such. If the Clause said that where there was a majority there should be a verdict accordingly, I would oppose it. It is only in a small proportion of two in 12 or one or 11 or 10 that there arise the people to whom I have referred. These things exist. They are bad for the administration of justice and for the morale of those who have to catch and convict the criminals. It will put the Home Secretary—whoever he may be at the time—in great difficulty when hon. Members ask why there have been only 30 per cent. of convictions in trials for indictable offences—

Dr. Winstanley: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be basing his argument on the fact that too many guilty people are acquitted. He may be right,

but how can majority verdicts help in the case of people who are acquitted unanimously?

Mr. Doughty: If a man is acquitted unanimously, he can walk out of a court a free man and that is the end of the matter.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned clots and cranks and said that, if the question was one of a simple majority, he would oppose it, but that as it is 10 to two, he supports it. Can he guarantee that there will not be more than two clots and/or cranks on a jury?

Mr. Doughty: The hon. Member knows the answer as well as I do. This reduces the chances, by a percentage which he as a betting man will no doubt be able to work out, to a reasonable proportion.
Then there is the position known to everyone who practices in the courts. Unless and until we have a system of qualified jurors passing examinations—which would be utter nonsense—people will be selected in this way to go into the jury box and the results are sometimes those which I have described.
It has been said the jury would say, "We know that two of us can disagree." That does not follow. Probably the practice will be for the judge to say to the jury, "I should like to know what your verdict will be and I hope that it is ananimous. If it is not, I should like to be told and will then consider the matter afresh." It is only in dealing with the further trial that this further safeguard should be applied. For that reason, I propose to accompany the Secretary of State into the Division Lobby.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) on an excellent speech. He made many of my points, which I hope my right hon. Friend will bear in mind, but I should like to reiterate some.
I, too, am appalled that the Home Secretary should bring forward this proposal with absolutely no evidence. I cannot regard the so-called evidence—the six cases in London and six or seven in the provinces—of "nobbled" juries as sufficient evidence upon which to base this reform. Others have suggested that this indicates only the tip of the iceberg,


but that is simply an assertion, with no evidence. It is regrettable that it cannot be demonstrated one way or the other. I am not a lawyer, but I gather that the incidence of "hung juries" is not recorded in criminal statistics.
We should have a complete record in future, therefore, of the number of "hung juries"—

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): indicated assent.

Mr. Jackson: I am glad to see my right hon. Friend agreeing—so we will be able to pass any future changes on hard evidence of jury practice.
Our only evidence is that in the Morris Report, which gave the figures in the Central Criminal Court for 1963 and said that there was no indication that they varied significantly from those of previous years. This also is an unsupported assertion, but, in view of the skill, experience and practice of the criminal law of the members of the Committee, one must assume that statement to be fairly accurate.
I am glad to know from my right hon. Friend that we are to collect some data. We hale some data already. Perhaps it was not available when the Secretary of State made his decision, but we can base judgments on it in respect of majority verdicts. It is the study of jury experience in the United States by Kalven and Zeisel. It shows that about 5 per cent. of American juries fail to agree. These two criminologists took a sample of these disagreements and I am told by statistician friends that their sample is of statistical significance. They took 155 examples and systematically studied the nature of the disagreement in each case. They found that a jury rarely disagreed unless there was a considerable degree of dissent. In the summary published in the English periodical Round Table, they stated:
… for most men, as other experiments in group psychology corroborate, companionship in dissent, at least at the outset, is required if they are to withstand the pressure of confronting a large majority. Hence the lone juror who finally hangs the jury will not emerge, according to this data, unless at the start his view had some support.
Hon. Members may have read an article in The Times by these two scholars. In it, they presented some interesting statistical tables. These showed that when there

was an initial disagreement on the first ballot of 11 to one, the jury eventually reached an agreement in every case; that when, on the first ballot, the disagreement was 10 to two, agreement was eventually reached; that when the breakdown was nine in favour of a verdict of guilty and three in favour of a verdict of not guilty, eventually agreement was reached and a verdict of guilty was brought in; and that only when the ratios were eight to four, seven to six, six to six and five to seven was there a real area of disagreement. At the other end of the scale, when 11 jurors considered a person to be not guilty while one held out for a verdict of guilty, eventually in all cases agreement was reached.
I suggest that the Home Secretary has given insufficient weight to what I would call the sociology of this problem—of the pressures that people are under in this situation. It is only rare that an individual will not conform. We had a recent example of this when Miss Lawford was subject to the kind of social pressures that are found in small groups of this kind. She did not stand out against the foreman of the jury at the time and it was not until later, perhaps out of remorse, that she expressed her dissent. I draw the conclusion from these facts that most examples of "hung juries" represent cases of substantial disagreement. We should not record only the details of the number of juries which are "hung", but the balance of voting within those juries. For example, I would like to know more about the five to seven and four to eight ratios.
Attention has been drawn to the situation in Oregon. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) pointed out yesterday that this is one of the few American States to have majority verdicts. He suggested that the evidence there could not be considered relevant to Britain. I disagree with him, because the evidence seems highly relevant. When the majority rule was introduced in Oregon, the number of "hung juries" increased to 25 per cent.
Kalven and Zeisel suggest that there is considerable likelihood that that situation would develop in Britain. They point out that when only two people disagree the other 10 mentally switch off and
… the jury just stops deliberating when it reaches the requisite majority".


When two people out of 12 disagree, that represents a considerable degree of doubt and means that there is not sufficient certainty on which to convict. I also believe that the administration of justice will be brought into disrepute if many people are convicted, as they will be, with the existence of such a degree of doubt.
Why should the ratio be 10 to two? Does not this represent a slur on the community? We are suggesting that two out of every 12 people, a considerable percentage, who act as jurors are prepared to be corrupted. There may be one perverse person on a jury, but the statistical likelihood of there being two such people is extremely small. Lord Devlin has wondered why, if two, not three or four? Why not simply have a straight majority? I hope that, as there has been so much opposition to my right hon. Friend's proposal, he will accept the compromise presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and reduce the ratio to 11 to one.
It has been argued that the Bill is designed to prevent the corruption of jurors and to ensure that the ends of justice are not defeated. I understand that this argument is buttressed by evidence which suggests that a surprising number of criminals serve on juries. This may be so, but my right hon. Friend has already covered this point in the Bill. I am glad that persons with criminal records will be excluded from jury service. After all, these people have had experience of the police and imprisonment and are probably reluctant to convict. They are obviously the sort of people who may be nobbled.
Lord Devlin stated:
Is a rather obscure prospect of convicting a few more guilty men enough to justify so ill-prepared a change in one of the oldest and greatest of our institutions.
He thought not. I, too, think not. We have endowed the world with two great institutions, Parliament and the jury system. It is because I believe in the purity of both that I shall vote for the Amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I intervene briefly to support hon. Members who have pleaded with the Home Secretary to allow this matter to be dealt with on

the basis of a free vote. This has been an extremely interesting and lively debate, one of those debates which the pundits who write about Parliament—and who often do not know much about the House—say is the sort of debate that is no longer possible here. Hon. Members on both sides of the House who have great knowledge of this matter have spoken with conviction and sincerity and have expressed varying points of view. This is surely just the sort of case where the Government should act in accordance with the view of the House of Commons, if that view is clearly expressed. In this case it certainly has been.
I have read the report of yesterday's debate and the "Stop Press" report of last night's discussion. From it I deduce that there is a great preponderance of argument against the Home Secretary's proposal. I do not know whether my views will be a great help to hon. Members in making up their minds on this issue but, as a lawyer, I did have some experience of criminal cases in my younger days at the Bar, when I was rather unsuccessful and thought that other branches of the law were more hopeful from my point of view.
I had the experience of conducting several prosecutions in important cases when I was a Law Officer and I recall that on one occasion, when a woman was charged with murder—she was found guilty and executed; the last woman to be executed—the judge told the jury, in effect, "The whole essence of the matter is that you must all be satisfied, every single one of you, that this woman committed this terrible crime before you find a verdict that will have such a terrible consequence." We do not have the death penalty any longer but I cannot help wondering what, if we had not abolished it, people would say to this proposal to have a 10 to 2 majority.
I came to the House yesterday with an open mind on this issue, though rather disposed to accept the view of the Home Secretary. My view has been changed by what I have heard during the debate. I do not believe that we should be swayed or that the right hon. Gentleman should be swayed by what has been said about the judges. After all, to consider the matter in a light-hearted vein, the judges were in favour by a majority of 28 to 8, which is 9 to 3 and not 10 to 2.


If we are to change the law in such a fundamental matter, the onus is on those who want to change it to prove that the change is required; but the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to obtain the sort of majority in favour of the proposal that he wishes to introduce for juries. This may be a rather rough way of deciding such a matter, but perhaps there is something in it.
Is there not a great deal in what has been said about this change having only a slight effect on the activities of those engaged in organised crime? After all, it will merely put up their expenses because they will have to provide sufficient money for three, rather than two, jurors. If those en Caged in organised crime are so powerful they will be prepared to go to the additional expense of "fixing" the extra juror.
It is a serious matter when a proposal of this kind is presented as a fait accompli to the House of Commons. Three or four Measures have been introduced by the Labour Government and instead of Ministers being prepared to listen to our arguments they have started off with closed minds. We have managed on one or two occasions to get some amendment, but time and time again we have heard a Minister say, "I am very sorry, the arguments are most interesting and excellent, but it is quite useless to put them forward because we have decided what we intend to do."
In a matter like this it should be remembered that Members of Parliament are the people entitled to speak for their constituents. Of course, one takes notice of the judges' views, or the views of those experienced in such matters, but when it is sought to change the laws of England and it is found that a great preponderance of hon. Members are against the change, surely it should not be made.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I am a barrister, so I suppose I must declare an interest but my real interest is to see that justice is done, or that we create the best possible conditions for it to be done. It seems to me that the reason for bringing in this provision is rather like the reason which the Mikado gave, which was that there had not been enough executions in Titipu. The Home Secretary must think, "There have not been enough convictions in England lately, so

let us have a few more". That is not a valid reason for bringing in such a provision as this. I respect my right hon. Friend in every way, but I think that on this occasion he should thing again.
The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) said that juries worked quite well. I do not think they do work very well. I have served as counsel in many cases where there have been juries on which I am more than sure there were more than two clots and cranks. In one case, as my client, the defendant, got into the witness box, I heard a woman juror say, "'E's guilty." That is not a satisfactory situation. But the jury is still the best thing we have been able to evolve.
The difference between a civil and a criminal case is that in a civil case the judge or jury decides on the balance of probabilities, but in a criminal case the jury—and this has gone on for generations—must be certain beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person is guilty. If one or two members of the jury have a reasonable doubt of the person's guilt and say so, but the accused is to be found guilty all the same, it means that we are changing our legal principles, and saying that the jury shall not convict only if they are certain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, because then there will be a reasonable doubt and yet the accused will be convicted. In such a case we will be departing from the well-known principles of our law and our system of justice.
It has been argued that juries may be nobbled. We know all about that, and have had experience of it. But I know that if I were a "nobbler" or a member of a gang of "nobblers," I would know that money was not short. We would be receiving as much as was needed to do the "nobbling." We know the kind of case in which it is done. If I were a "nobbler" or a member of a gang of "nobblers" and knew that if two members of the jury stuck out it would make no difference, I would see to it that three members of the jury were "nobbled," or four, if necessary—

Mr. Hogg: Is not the hon. Gentleman overlooking the possibility that there might be nine or even ten honourable men on the jury who could not be "nobbled"?

Mr. Tuck: I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If the jury consists of people who cannot be "nobbled" at all, the more reason why when one or more is in doubt the verdict should be not guilty. But why take a ten to two ratio? Why not nine to three or eight to four? The principle is entirely wrong.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary feels that security is in danger, but if he feels like that why does he not go about it in the right way and, for example, have the name of every juror carefully scrutinised by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Let the Director go through the list with a fine-tooth comb and weed out any undesirable character. As far as I am aware, this is not done at present.
If that it not enough, why not go back to our former system—not in every case, but in cases where "nobbling" is getting dangerous, such as the long firm frauds—of keeping the jury together for the whole of the case? That would ensure that there was no nobbling. Keep them together—lock them up, if necessary—and make sure, in that way, that there is no "nobbling". But the proposed way ensures nothing of the kind.
I am afraid that the Home Secretary has gone about things rather in the same way as did the man who found another man making love to his wife on the sofa. He was distraught for about a week. Later he seemed to perk up, and when his friends asked, "Have you resolved your problem?" he replied "Yes—I have sold the sofa."
I earnestly ask my right hon. Friend to look at this matter again. If he wants to ensure security, let him introduce measures that really bite. I ask him to reconsider the Clause—perhaps withdraw it for the present—or at least induce the Chief Whip to allow the Question to be put to a free vote so as not to embarrass very many of us on this side who have very strong feelings against this Clause.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On this issue and at this stage I am a genuine floating voter, and there are certain questions that I want to ask the Home Secretary. First, why has he nobbled his own jury? Why does he not allow them to give a true verdict in the face of the evidence given to the House of Commons and the argu-

ments adduced, instead of putting on the Whips. If he says that there should not be a free vote on criminal matters why was the Whip not put on for the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill? The argument for having a free vote must be the same in both cases.
As I say, the Home Secretary has nobbled his own jury. Already, one hon. Member has told us that he is apprehensive about whether or not he should act as his conscience directs—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: My right hon. Friend is not merely "nobbling" his own jury, but insisting that the jury at this stage shall be unanimous. He is not satisfied with a majority verdict.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his extremely relevant intervention. But, to be fair to the Home Secretary, he is not asking his hon. Friends to do any more than he himself is doing, and that is closing his mind entirely to the arguments advanced in this debate. We must therefore be fair to the right hon. Gentleman on this point.
As a non-lawyer, I like to think that in drafting new criminal legislation we aim at least for accuracy. Do we find it here? The purpose of this Amendment is to leave out Clause 10. The title of the Clause is
Majority verdicts of juries in criminal proceedings.
To the best of my knowledge, a majority means half the number plus one. If we do that with 12 we get seven—six plus one. That means that if the word "majority" is to be used accurately as in line 20
… and a verdict authorised by this subsection is hereafter in this section referred to as a 'majority verdict'
any reasonable person would say that the Home Secretary is mis-describing as a majority verdict what is, in fact, a 10 to 2 or 11 to 1 verdict. Will he tell us why he has used the phrase "majority verdict"? Many members of the public would regard a man of whom they read in the Press that he was acquitted by a majority verdict as very possibly having been acquitted by a vote of 7 to 5, not a vote of 10 to 2. I cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman can use this lamentably inaccurate phrase.
In the debate we have heard a lot about the difficulty of getting a conviction because of a stubborn, a frightened, a corrupt or a foolish person. We should also be concerned about people being unable to get an acquittal because of a stubborn, a frightened, a corrupt or foolish person on a jury. As a floating voter my inclination is to support the Clause as it stands, despite its defects, because I believe that justice and mercy are not the same things. Justice means getting an accurate verdict and an accurate verdict is more important than a unanimous verdict. That is what justice is about.
6.30 p.m.
It sometimes happens that people on juries are unable to escape their own prejudices. To take an example, if someone had broken the Sabbath a juryman may be predisposed to find that person guilty of an offence alleged to have been committed on the Sabbath. To some jurymen and magistrates merely to possess a red sports car is evidence of exceeding the speed limit. This has nothing to do with corruption. Bearing in mind the nervous strain and financial hardship which standing trial involves, to stand trial again bse the jury is not unanimous in acquitting a man might be a far greater hardship than being acquitted with one or possibly two dissentient voices. It can impose a terrible burden on an accused person who in fact is not guilty.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Suppose that it was the other way round, that 10 of the jury were for conviction and two for acquittal. I cannot remember in what year it was, but recently over 30 per cent. of cases in which there had been a disagreement resulted in acquittals on the second trial.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That is certainly so, but it is not the same as saying that in those 30 per cent. of cases the persons acquitted had not in fact committed the offences concerned. I prefaced my remarks by saying that I was interested in an accurate verdict. Just as it does not necessarily follow in every case where someone is convicted that he is in fact guilty, nor does it necessarily follow that in every case where someone is convicted that he is in fact guilty, nor does it necessarily follow that in every

case where someone is acquitted he is not guilty.
The whole trend of legislation passed by this House over the last 10 years rightly or wrongly has been of one distinct kind. The trend has been to say that it is the probability of detection and conviction which is the great deterrent, not the Draconian nature of the penalty imposed after conviction. The House, irrespective of political complexion, has accepted this doctrine as the years have gone by and the paradigm case for this was on the question of capital punishment. This was one of the major arguments in favour of abolishing capital punishment. We must be consistent. If at one time we stress the importance of securing a conviction of guilty persons, we must be consistent today in applying that same test.
That is why, having listened to some and having read the rest of yesterday's debate, so far as it was published in HANSARD, and having been present in the debate most of today, although I resent bitterly the way in which the Home Secretary has treated hon. Members opposite and frankly I do not respect his own confidence in his case in applying the Whips to a non issue—I do not respect him in the least for that—nevertheless, I think the balance of advantage in the administration of accurate justice—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does not the hon. Member perceive that there is no way of assuring an accurate judgment this side of the final Day of Judgment and that in the opinion of most people throughout most of the history of this country the nearest approach we can get to guaranteeing that the verdict is right rather than wrong is to insist that it shall be unanimous?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I think that argument has been mis-stated. The argument has been put that the nearest we can get to never convicting an innocent man under any circumstances must be a unanimous verdict. I do not agree with the implied proposition that it is equally true that the nearest we can get to never acquitting a guilty man is by a unanimous verdict. Here there is a slight confusion. Somewhere, somehow by some criteria and standards we in this House have got to draw a line between the importance of


never convicting an innocent man and the importance of securing sufficient convictions of guilty people to deter the offence which we are endeavouring to deter.
Wherever we draw that line it will be a defective line, but I am not satisfied that the requirement for a unanimous verdict has been shown over the years to result in a sufficient certainty of conviction to say that the balance of advantage remains in favour of continuing the existing system.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I disagree with the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I believe it is of paramount importance that no man in this country should be convicted unless his guilt is absolutely proved. If we want to secure more convictions, the way to do that is to investigate the system of evidence and the laws of evidence, not to tinker about with juries.
I had an opportunity on Second Reading to speak on the intention of the Government to institute a majority verdict provision. I have nothing to add to that and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Che (Dr. Winstanley), but I wish to mak points. The first is that the opinion of the judges has been canvassed on behalf of the Government in this case but from my personal knowledge some of the most eminent and most experienced judges in the country are completely opposed to majority verdicts. There is no doubt at all about that.
On the second point I do not approach this matter on a statistical basis at all. It seems that the two great safeguards of our liberty have been Parliament on the one hand and the jury system on the other. The onus of proof rests firmly on the shoulders of the Home Secretary when trying to change the jury system.
It is an absolute, disgrace that the Government Whips are being imposed this evening. Whatever the view of any hon. Member—and I appreciate the power and strength of some views expressed which are opposite to mine—there is no justification whatever for the Government Whips to be imposed in a vote on a matter of this kind. This is essentially a basic constitutional issue. If the Home Secretary has no faith in his advocacy of his own case and does not believe that he can carry the House with him on this

vital matter, which cannot be of the greatest importance to general Government policy, he has no business to put on the Government Whips.
The right hon. Gentleman has always had a reputation for being a liberal Home Secretary. His action in seeing that the Whips are to be imposed this evening has greatly impaired that reputation.

Sir J. Hobson: I have the perhaps unusual privilege of speaking from this Box to express a view which is in direct conflict with that expressed last evening from the same Box. The last occasion that I know of in the history of the House when this occurred was when the father of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), admittedly then sitting on the Government side of the House, disagreed with the then Solicitor-General and others over the Prayer Book, all of them sitting on the same Front Bench.
I hope that those who witness this scene yesterday and today will think that, on the whole, it is a rather good thing; and that on matters that touch deeply the liberty of the, subject, the administration of justice our constitution, it is no bad thing  hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, as they have in this debate, express exactly what they think and feel about an admittedly difficult but very important topic.
When I first saw this proposal, I confess that I accepted the Home Secretary's views and thought that it was probably satisfactory to have majority verdicts. One of the reasons why I so thought was that I was aware of what happened in Scotland. Despite my knowledge of the trial of James Stewart of the Glen, which I do not need to go into, I still thought that the fact that there is a system of majority verdicts in Scotland was a good indication that it would be proper to have such a system in England.
I then discovered the state of the law in Scotland as it was explained to us by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), who gave great assistance to the House in indicating what the difference is. I remembered, for instance, that in the case of the Thurso boy it was impossible to put a policeman on trial on the word of one boy. An English jury might well have had to try the truthfulness of one


policeman and one boy who said that he had been assaulted by that policeman in Scotland. That can never happen. It is only where there is corroboration as explained by my hon. and learned Friend that majority verdicts can be given in Scotland.
Having listened to all of the debate, except for about three minutes, I think that the vast weight of opinion which has been expressed by all those who have spoken is against the Home Secretary's proposal. Counting heads and listening to the speeches, I believe that there is an overwhelming view on the part of those who have spoken, and who have taken the trouble to speak, against the Home Secretary; but whether that is right or not in the Lobbies, we shall find out in a few minutes.
We must start from the point—what is the case that the Home Secretary makes'? I have a great deal of sympathy for him, because he embarked upon this course last year when he had behind him a letter from the Lord Chief Justice saying that all the judges would agree with it. That was quite a good foundation, apart from the fact that the Home Secretary had not taken the trouble to find out whether the judges really were behind the proposal.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: What the Lord Chief Justice did was to deliver judgment first, collect the evidence afterwards, and then find that the evidence did not support his judgment.

Sir J. Hobson: I would not like to say that that is quite right. I think that it was plain on the face of the Lord Chief Justice's letter that he was saying only, "I think that the judges would probably think like this". That must have been dear to the Home Secretary. It does not appear that the Home Secretary said to the Lord Chief Justice, "Will you kindly find out what the judges think?". The right hon. Gentleman went ahead on an expression of opinion by the Lord Chief Justice as to what the other judges would think and not on what they did think.
Not only that, but ever since there has been no attempt to discover until last night what the Queen's Bench judges think. Even at this stage we do not know the opinion of the majority of the other judges who preside over criminal jury trials, and they are 90 per cent. of

the criminal jury trials; because it is the Crown Courts, and the recorders and chairmen of quarter sessions who conduct the vast majority of such cases.
6.45 p.m.
I will try to summarise the arguments shortly, first as to why I think that the Home Secretary's reasons are totally inadequate for this change, and, secondly, as to why I also think that there are positive reasons why it should not be made.
First the Home Secretary relies, and has always relied—he has been very forthright; he has relied solely and entirely—on the risks of corruption in a few cases which he has said are of a high quality and of great importance. We know of six cases in London in three years and of six cases in the provinces in a couple of years. This total seems to be absolutely minimal and does not even impress many of the supporters the Home Secretary has for his proposal. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) said that he was not in the least impressed by it. It is totally wrong that a change of this fundamental nature should be made on such a tiny sample.
I agree that it is very impressive for the Home Secretary to say, as he did last night, that he has to employ 86 policemen at present to guard a jury. This will happen twice a year at the present rate in London and probably not at all in the provinces. Although everybody would wish to diminish burdens of this type which may be imposed on the police, is it not a price that we ought to pay and bear in order to preserve the unanimity rule by a jury if we think that it is right?

Mr. Antony Buck: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, even if there were majority verdicts, there would still have to be that number of policemen doing precisely that job in the cases which have been cited?

Sir J. Hobson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is very likely that in a number of such cases protection would still have to be provided.
Looking outside London, I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Lady-wood (Mr. Victor Yates) about the position in the Midlands. I have made inquiries, not only from those who are concerned in the administration of justice, but from the chief constable in my county


and from other sources. They think that there is no evidence that in that area there is any attempt to nobble juries, except the very rare case. The information I have from those with experience in the North of England and many other places is exactly and precisely the same.
Faced with these facts, many of those who are promising to support the Home Secretary in the Lobby are changing their ground and are now saying, "We do not think anything of those cases, but we must look out for the cranks and the oddities. These are the people who we cannot allow to continue on juries". It is odd that in 600 years we have not heard much about all the cranks. I do not believe that human nature has changed that much. Although I do not in the least desire to retain a system merely because it has existed for 600 years, and I would not wish to judge it except upon the basis of the system as it is at present, I regard it as a little odd that no one thought of this argument before. It is suddenly produced to bolster up a case which is seen to be failing in the hands of the Home Secretary.
The quality in part of the Home Secretary's argument is a rather dangerous one. He says that the trouble is that the cases in which there is corruption are those few very important cases where very important criminals are involved. Be that so, but the Home Secretary proposes to change the rules not only for every other man who is tried throughout the country, but for all the other important cases that are tried in this country—for cases of treason, for cases brought under the Official Secrets Act, for cases of riot, for cases of great political import, and for cases involving very important issues. So the right hon. Gentleman will change the rule qualitatively as well as quantitatively for every other case so as to deal with a very few cases which he regards as exceptional.
I will summarise the reasons why in my view it is wrong to change the unanimity rule. First, there is the effect on an accused man. If he is guilty, is it satisfactory to send a man to prison for a very long time with the idea in his head that two at least of the jurors did not believe in his guilt? Equally, on acquittal, is it right that a man should for the rest of his life, though acquitted,

know—and that other people should know—that two jurors thought that he was guilty? In addition to that, it seems to me that the verdict of a jury has public acceptability by its unanimity. The public are inclined to think that, if the jury were able to agree upon their verdict, it is more than likely that it was correct, and, to that extent, they ought to accept it.
The other result of this change will be to remove the power of a minority to argue. The Home Secretary recognises this. This is why he has put in the two-hour rule. He recognises that, in the ordinary circumstances, if there are two men who are both intelligent and determined and they want to argue, unless he gives them the two hours in which to argue, he will take away all capacity for them to continue the argument. He is, therefore, fundamentally altering the balance of power within the jury. I am sure that this will have a considerable effect upon the way in which juries operate in the future.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone disagreed with the unanimity rule. I always greatly regret when I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend, but he seemed to attach his argument very much to whether the number should be 12 or 10—thinking of the 12 Apostles, whether the strength of the Liberal Party was 12, and so on—but the argument has nothing whatever to do with whether the number should be 12 or 10. It has nothing to do with the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) when he spoke of our having had seven on a jury in war time. They still have to be unanimous. All we are discussing is the unanimity rule, not the total number on the jury.
I have no doubt that abolition of the unanimity rule will lower the burden of proof on the prosecution. My right hon. and learned Friend denies that and says that the burden of proof remains the same, proof beyond all reasonable doubt. In logic, of course, he is right. That would be so if all the jury were doing was objectively solving an intellectual problem which was capable of rational exercise alone, like a puzzle to be solved. In fact, it is doing nothing of the sort. It is finding its way, first, through the


evidence. It must apply its reason to the evidence. But it has a much more important function, that of applying its subjective judgment to the witnesses who appear before it. It has to look at the fellow citizens who come into the witness box or who are sitting in the dock, and each one of the 12 jurors must consider how far one or other of all those witnesses are or are not to be believed.
Thus, the jury has a double function, an objective function and a subjective function. In practice, it must be more difficult to convince all of 12 jurors that, both subjectively and objectively, the Crown has proved its case than it is to convince only 10 of their number. Therefore, while I think that my right hon. and learned Friend is quite right in saying that, logically, the burden of proof is unchanged, in practice the prosecution will have an advantage in being able more easily to obtain a verdict.
I come now to my principal objection, the risk of a wrong verdict. I agree with those hon. Members—I think that it was the hon. Members for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) and for Reading (Mr. John Lee) who said this—who do not believe that this alteration would have been introduced while hanging remained a penalty imposed by the law. I have always been a retentionist, but I should never stand for a man being hanged on a majority verdict of 10 to 2, and I do not believe that anybody else would have permitted it. I am sure that it would always be intolerable.
If it is intolerable when the penalty is death, why is it acceptable to convict a man when the penalty is not death? What we want to guard against is not the imposition of the penalty but the wrong conviction. Nothing could be worse for our administration of justice than that men should be unfairly and wrongly convicted. This is where I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). We cannot attempt to achieve the most accurate system of arriving at verdicts if it carries with it a greater risk of wrong conviction. This is why, for my part, I cannot support an alteration which I originally thought acceptable but which, the longer I consider the argument, the more convinced I am that it would be wrong to accept.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I trust that the House will acquit me of discourtesy—

Mr. F. P. Crowder: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to ask a question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke last night in this debate, did he not?

Mr. Crowder: I do not want to interrupt, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot intervene to ask a question until after the Home Secretary has started.

Mr. Jenkins: I trust that the House will acquit me of discourtesy if at this stage I do not weary it with a substantive reply. I spoke at some length last night. We have all had our say. I have spoken three times on this question, and I doubt that anything more said at this stage will change people's minds.
The only point I make in reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) is not a substantive one. He said that the great weight of views had been against the proposal. This is not true. The weight has been fairly evenly balanced [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes; there have been no fewer than 10 speeches in favour and there have been 13 against, and it is natural in circumstances of this kind that those whose opinion is against should speak most strongly. I take no objection to that.

Mr. Crowder: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to ask him this question? In Committee on 8th February—this is cc. 330–1 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—I drew attention to and challenged the letter from the Lord Chief Justice. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman told the House last night that the Lord Chief Justice had written round or written to him on 7th March, and it was not until last night that we were, for the first time, informed of the results of that letter.
It seems to me that someone has not done his homework—it may be the Lord Chief Justice, it may be the Home Secretary—but, there having been this discrepancy, why was not the second letter disclosed to the Committee or the House very much earlier?

Mr. Jenkins: There is no doubt that, had I wished to conceal the letter from the Lord Chief Justice—which never crossed my mind—I could have let it out very much more easily than by announcing it to a full House last night and showing that, while the Lord Chief Justice was not right in saying that there was unani-

mity, there was nevertheless a very substantial majority of Queen's Bench judges.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 21, stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 180 Noes 102.

Division No. 324.]
AYES
[6.58 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Moyle, Roland


Anderson, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Murray, Albert


Archer, Peter
Grieve, Percy
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby, S.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Norwood, Christopher


Ashley, Jack
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Nott, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Ogden, Eric


Awdry, Daniel
Hamling, William
O'Malley, Brian


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orbach, Maurice


Barnett, Joel
Haseldine, Norman
Orme, Stanley


Bell, Ronald
Hattersley, Roy
Palmer, Arthur


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hazell, Bert
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Henig, Stanley
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hiley, Joseph
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hilton, W. S.
Pavitt, Laurence


Binns, John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Hooley, Frank
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Horner, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brooks, Edwin
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hynd, John
Rankin, John


Cant, R. B.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rees, Merlyn


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Coe, Denis
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kelley, Richard
Russell, Sir Ronald


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kenyon, Clifford
Scott, Nicholas


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sheldon, Robert


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lawson, George
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Luard, Evan
Smith, John


Dell, Edmund
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dewar, Donald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
MacDermot, Niall
Swain, Thomas


Dickens, James
Macdonald, A. H.
Swingler, Stephen


Dobson, Ray
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Taverne, Dick


Doig, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Doughty, Charles
Mackie, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Driberg, Tom
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, J. Kevin
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
MacPherson, Malcolm
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eadie, Alex
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfleld, E.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Ellis, John
Marquand, David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ennals, David
Maxwell, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wallace, George


Fernyhough, E.
Mayhew, Christopher
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Floud, Bernard
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wright, Esmond


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Molloy, William



Forster, Sir John
Moonman, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Mr. Gourlay and Mr. Harper.




NOES


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Biggs-Davison, John
Body, Richard


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Black, Sir Cyril
Braine, Bernard


Biffen, John
Blaker, Peter
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)




Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Holland, Philip
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hooson, Emlyn
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Carlisle, Murk
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Pardoe, John


Clegg, Waller
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Percival, Ian


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hunt, John
Pink, R, Bonner


Crawley, Aidan
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crowder, F. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Francis


Dalkeith, Earl of
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dance, James
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Roebuck, Roy


Drayson, G. B.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Royle, Anthony


Eden, Sir John
Kitson, Timothy
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Elliott, P. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Eyre, Reginald
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tapsell, Peter


Fortescue, Tim
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Loveys, W. H.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Clover, Sir Douglas
Lubbock, Eric
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Walters, Dermis


Grant, Anthony
McMaster, Stanley
Ward, Dame Irene


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maddan, Martin
Webster, David


Gregory, Arnold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Weitzman, David


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mills, stratton (Belfast, N.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Monro, Hector
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
More, Jasper
Wylie, N. R.


Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Yates, Victor


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Neave, Airey



Heseltine, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Mr. Deedes and Mr. Sharples.

Mr. Speaker: We come now to Amendment No. 79, with which we shall discuss Amendment No. 80, in page 9, line 29, at the end to insert:
(4) Where a Court is willing to accept a majority verdict, the Court shall so inform the jury and thereafter the Court shall ask the jury if they are agreed upon their verdict either unanimously or by a majority verdict and the foreman of the jury shall not state in open Court the number of jurors who respectively agreed to or dissented from the verdict.

Mr. Buck: I beg to move Amendment No. 79, page 9, line 22, to leave out subsection (2).
The House having come to a conclusion in favour of majority verdicts, we come to what I submit is a very important Amendment concerning the way in which that decision should be implemented.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Gentleman said, "The House having come to a conclusion …", but as there were 320 Members abstaining on that Division it seems impossible, in those circumstances, for the House to come to a conclusion. Therefore, may I bid the hon. Gentleman "Goodnight" and thank him for allowing this intervention? I feel that if these decisions are to be taken on a majority of a minority there really is not very much point in discussing—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The intervention is suspiciously like a speech.

Mr. Buck: I am none the less grateful for the intervention, and if the Home Secretary sees fit to interrupt me in order to answer it I shall be only too delighted. In the absence of any intervention from the Front Bench opposite, I am afraid that it is not within my power to meet the hon. Gentleman's point. I think that it is a good point, but I see no stirring on the Front Bench opposite and therefore I think that it will remain unanswered.
The House have apparently come to something of a determination in favour of majority verdicts, it is now vitally important that that decision should be implemented in as satisfactory a way as possible. Clause 10(2) at present provides that:
A court shall not accept a majority verdict unless the foreman of the jury has stated in open court the number of jurors who respectively agreed to and dissented from the verdict.
We are creating first- and second-class verdicts, and the most important aspect of this is that we are also creating first-and second-class acquittals. In my view and that of many of my hon. Friends—I am glad to have the approval of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), who did not agree with me on the main issue—it is a bad thing to create first- and second-class verdicts which are to be made public in the way subsection (2) provides at the moment.
Let us consider the position of a prisoner who is found not guilty by a majority. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult for an hon. Member to address the House if a series of conversations is going on.

Mr. Buck: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.
Let us consider the position in which a person will find himself if he is acquitted of a charge by a majority. What will happen in court will go something like this: the clerk of the court will ask, "Are you agreed upon your verdict?" and the foreman will rise and say "Yes", and this formula will then be put: "Do you find the prisoner guilty or not guilty of" whatever the charge had been, and the answer will be, "We find him not guilty"; the foreman will then be asked, "Was that the verdict of you all?" and in majority cases the foreman will have to say, "No, it was not the verdict of us all; two of us thought that he was guilty."

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that it will work like that? I am not certain myself. I would have thought that if the law were amended in the sense of Clause 10, which the House has just accepted, it would not be possible for a jury to give a verdict and then be asked about the numbers. The jury will be asked not whether it finds the prisoner guilty or not guilty, but "Which way did you vote and how many were there on each side?" That is a totally different thing.

Mr. Buck: The formula may be somewhat different from what I have suggested, but subsection (2) provides that the court shall not accept a majority verdict unless the foreman of the jury has stated in open open court the number of jurors who respectively agree to and dissent from the verdict. Although it might differ a little from the version which I have adumbrated, in effect it will come to the same thing, although there may be some adjustments. Clearly, at some stage in majority cases the foreman will have to say that not all the jury found the prisoner not guilty and that two members thought that he was guilty.
In those circumstances, this person will be saddled with a second-class verdict. His counsel will ask for the man to be

discharged, and he will be discharged and, according to our system, he will go out as an innocent man. But will he, in fact, be regarded as such when two good men and true will have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty?
Let us consider the effect on a person acquitted, although convicted by two of his fellow men, who is in a position of some trust. What will be his employer's position? If he is in a position of trust, his employers may have a duty, for example, to depositors if he is employed by a bank. Is a bank clerk who has been found not guilty of a charge involving dishonesty to be allowed to continue in his job? It is pretty certain that he is unlikely to get to bank manager status with something like that behind him. What would be the effect on civil servants? Employers will have an unfair burden with this sort of consideration.
It is a highly invidious position all round. The worst which can happen when a man is acquitted by a majority is that he will be ruined and the best that can happen to him is that his enemies will say that he was jolly lucky to get off and it was only by a majority, and that two people thought beyond reasonable doubt that he had been guilty of the offence. All the old adages will come up about there being no smoke without fire, and so on, and people will say, "Buggins got away with it; two people saw through him". That is the least that can happen to him, and it is highly invidious.
What are the objections to such an Amendment? The first Amendment would provide that a jury should be asked only whether it is agreed upon its verdict and comprehensively agreed, either by a majority or unanimously. It would only answer that it was agreed upon its verdict and would then give it.
7.15 p.m.
I suppose that the first objection to my proposition is that which was mentioned earlier in the interesting debate on the substantial issue. It is said that it is important that there should be no confusion if there are to be majority verdicts. The possibility of confusion can be overstated. Obviously, it will be necessary for the judge to explain very fully to the jury just before it retires what the position is and possibly to reiterate it when the jury comes back to


give its verdict. There is no formula in the Bill and a formula will have to be worked out, and it will have to be explained to the jury with meticulous care by the judge. The chances of confusion are fairly remote. However, if there is substance in that argument, it is perfectly possible to get over it, as I shall indicate later.
At the moment, we still have subsection (3) which says that a court shall not accept a majority verdict unless it appears to the court that the jury has had not less than two hours for deliberation, or such longer period as the court regards as reasonable, having regard to the nature and complication of the case. That has to be got over if subsection (3) is retained, and I have some doubt as to whether subsection (3)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot now discuss whether subsection (3) should be kept in or taken out.

Mr. Buck: I am assuming that it will be left in and not extracted by another place, but the position can be met. The foreman of the jury would write on a piece of paper what the voting was, whether it was 10 to two, or unanimous. That paper would then be shown to the judge and to those representing the accused and the prosecution. It must go to all three, because it is rightly a principle of our law that there should be no private communication between jury and judge. If it is thought, as at the moment, that subsection (3) should be retained, the position could be met perfectly satisfactorily in that way.
The only other objection to an Amendment like this of which I can think is that we would not have as much statistical knowledge about the matter as we might otherwise. That can be met, because the judge in some anonymous way, without indicating the case, could make a return, so that we would have the numbers of majority verdicts and of unanimous verdicts. I am sure that the Government would not wish any statistical compilation to be regarded as of major significance in considering what is just and what is not.
I say with some vehemence that it would be a fundamental mistake to introduce first-class and second-class verdicts, to have a man branded for the rest of

his life as having been acquitted only by a majority, so that it could be said that two good men and true were convinced of his guilt.
The Scottish system may be called in aid, but there are fundamental differences, as we have heard from a most able speech by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), between the two systems. In Scotland a verdict of not proven can be returned. That means that the whole body of 12 jurors have concluded that the prosecution case has not been made out. That is very different from people having positively concluded that a man is not guilty.
In view of what we have been told by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pentlands, the Scottish parallel does not have much validity, but in any event there is the fundamental difference that in one case one would be able to say that the jury had not had sufficient evidence to reach a verdict while, in the other situation, there would have been a majority verdict, with two people not having been convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was not guilty. Those are my reasons for putting forward the Amendment.

Mr. Grieve: I should like to briefly support my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) in his Amendment. To retain subsection (2) would have the result which he has postulated, that we would have first and second-class verdicts, and that would be a very bad thing indeed for the administration of justice. It would result in persons who were known to have been acquitted by a majority having some slight shadow over them for the rest of their lives.
It might be thought that there is an administrative difficulty here, but I do not believe that there is. In Committee, I drew attention to a formula which I thought would meet the necessities of the case, and would result in there being no public statement whether it was a majority verdict or a unanimous one. All that would be necessary would for the clerk of the peace, in asking the jury for their verdict to say something like this:
Members of the jury, have you reached a verdict in this case? Are you either unanimously, or by a majority of not less than 10 to two, come to a conclusion?


The foreman of the jury would say, "Yes" and the verdict would then be given. The public would not know whether it was unanimous or a majority verdict. For the administration of justice, that would be a very great convenience.
I am convinced that the result would be that a man would leave the court and no one would be able to point a finger at him and say:
Ah, but two people on that jury would have convicted him.
That, I believe, would be very bad, and that is why I support my hon. Friend.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I shall be very brief, not because I do not think that this is not an important matter, but because it is only a short point. In Committee, when I moved a similar Amendment, the Home Secretary was kind enough to say that he would give serious consideration to this point. He was pressed very strongly about it by other hon. Members. I suppose that we can take it from what he said last night that he will say that, having given further consideration to the matter, he is not prepared to accept this proposal, and is standing by the proposals in the Bill.
I want to try to answer the two arguments which he put up in his speech yesterday to justify subsection (2). The first dealt with confusion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) said, this is not a serious argument. Under the Clause as it stands, a jury cannot return a majority verdict until the judge has indicated that he would be willing to accept it, so presumably he will have to send for the jury and tell it that he considers that it has been out long enough, and that he will now accept a majority verdict by 10 to two. That will be made very clear to the jury, and presumably he will tell it this at the beginning and, when it goes out, that if it comes back within two hours it has to be unanimous. I find it difficult to see how confusion could arise with the numbers concerned.
The second point, on which the Home Secretary laid stress last night, was that it was necessary to know, for the purpose of research into the jury system. I find that difficult to understand, because I do

not see what possible advantage the knowledge of the voting will be in any research. I do not believe that it will show the Home Secretary anything at all. All that it will show is that in a certain number of juries there has been disagreement. That does not mean that, if the jury still had to be unanimous, it would not have returned a unanimous verdict. It may mean merely that it decided very early on that one or two did not agree with the rest and the remainder of the jury decided, rather than argue it out, that they would wait for at least two hours and then return a verdict.
Equally, if the jury returns a unanimous verdict it may be that early on, the two are standing out and they say to themselves,
What is the point of waiting two hours? Let us give in now and say that we are unanimous, because it will be the same in the end.
I cannot see that there will be an advantage to the Home Secretary in having knowledge of the voting. The arguments put up by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester are absolutely overwhelming. The danger will be that a man acquitted by a majority verdict will always be open to someone saying that two men have found him guilty. Similarly, the danger with the convicted man would be that he would say that there were two who thought him innocent. While I hope that the Clause, which has apparently been passed by a minority, will find its way out of the Bill before it completes its passage through the whole of Parliament, I hope that if it is to remain this subsection will be looked at.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): The main point made against this subsection was that in cases of acquittal by a majority verdict it would be a slur upon a man. I doubt whether an acquittal by a majority would be more of a slur than the other possibility which we have considered, the disagreeing jury, in the sense that in any event someone acquitted by a majority would be in an infinitely better position than someone not acquitted at all.
The element of a slur will not really be something which is more of a disadvantage under the present circumstances of the Clause than it is under


the present law. It is doubtful whether the existence of a majority verdict as opposed to a unanimous verdict is something that can be hidden from the public and which will not come out in any event.
In the first place, the judge will ask the jury to be unanimous. In certain cases the jury may return and tell the judge that they are unable to agree. If the judge then feels, as the Clause stands, that it is reasonable, after the deliberations that the jury has had, to accept a majority verdict, he will then tell it that he can Co so. If a jury then returns with the verdict straight away, which will happen in a number of cases, it will be known that there is a majority verdict.

Mr. Carlisle: With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he has not been so long away from practice at the Bar to be allowed to get away with that argument. He knows that often judges send for juries or juries come back and say that they cannot agree. The judge asks them to retire again and the jury then returns. It may come back to the court quite shortly afterwards but no one suggests that there is any doubt in the unanimity of its verdict.

Mr. Taverne: No, that does not suggest a doubt of unanimity in present circumstances, but in the majority of cases, where the judge finds that a jury is unable to agree, and then says that he will accept a majority verdict, there will be a suspicion on the part of the public twat a majority verdict has been arrived at. Where there has been that suspicion, and where it is unjustified, it would be much better that it should be known to be unjustified than that it should he suspected that a majority had been reached.
In Scotland, there is the announcement of the tact that a majority verdict has been arrived at. With respect to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), the differences in the Scottish law of evidence are really totally irrelevant to this problem. The different kinds of verdict in Scotland are totally irrelevant. One can have a "guilty" verdict by majority, a "not proven" verdict by majority, and a "not guilty" verdict by majority. In each case it is known to everyone concerned whether the verdict is unanimous or by a majority. The Scottish example is a very

good one to take. The absence of disquiet in Scotland about majority verdicts being known is something which should support confidence in the law, as it will be changed.
The hon. Member for Colchester, and the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said that the argument about the need to avoid confusion was not very substantial. The fact remains that even at present, when clear directions are given to the jury that it must be unanimous, there are cases in which confusion arises. It may be that the verdict is not unanimous. One of the jury may have protested and said, "It is not the verdict of us all". With a majority verdict, it is desirable to ensure that the majority is arrived at by the correct proportion and that it is not by nine to three. I should have thought that the need to avoid confusion was a consideration which the House should bear in mind.
7.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Runcorn threw doubt on the value of having statistics available. During the debate on the principle of majority verdicts a number of hon. Members called for more research into juries. That cannot be easily undertaken, because there would be widespread objection to the "bugging" of a jury room or to taking a tape recording of what went on in the jury room. There are widespread objections, which I do not share, to the interviewing of jurors about what went on in the jury room. It is impossible to do proper research into juries.
I have some doubt how valuable simulated juries are in providing proper evidence. But one thing which we can learn under the majority system is whether there has been a verdict of 10 to two, 11 to one, or a unanimous verdict. How are we to know in how many cases these decisions are arrived at unless the results are published in court? The call for more knowledge about the working of juries would go unanswered if the results were not made known in the court.

Mr. Buck: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will deal with the point which I raised, which would solve the problem.

Mr. Taverne: I was about to come to that.
The hon. Member for Colchester suggested that the judge should make private inquiries and provide statistics afterwards showing in which cases there had been a majority verdict and in which cases there had not. It is undesirable that judges should make private inquiries about what goes on—I see the hon. Member for Runcorn nodding—but the public should know about it. If we want statistics about how the jury system is working, we want them to be announced in open court.
Since the argument about a slur does not apply, since it is likely that the existence of a majority verdict will be known or suspected even in cases in which it has been unanimous, and since there is no disquiet about this matter in Scotland, I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Walter Clegg: The Under-Secretary of State is being extremely obtuse about the effect which the Amendment would have on people acquitted on a majority verdict. It is all very well for him to say that there is no general disquiet about this matter in Scotland. But I dare say that no research has been carried out into how people feel when they are on the receiving end of a majority verdict and what effect it has on their lives. This has been going on in Scotland for some time. People there may have been conditioned to it. We have not been conditioned to it in this country.
I feel very strongly about a man who has been tried by a jury on which a perverse juror for some crankish reason registers a vote for conviction when 11 others register a vote for acquittal having this thrown at him for the rest of his life. On the whole, people are uncharitable in these matters. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say, as has been said by other Members on both sides, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), that there is the same casting of a slur if there is a disagreement among the jury. But if one believes, as many of us believe, that there will be an increase in majority verdicts being registered against a very small number of disagreements, this becomes very much more of a problem.

The Amendment is a way in which it can be met.
I agree that statistics should be kept. I see nothing wrong with the clerk of assize or clerk of the court, who asks the jury for its verdict, being informed by the foreman of the jury what the vote was so that statistics could be kept. I hope that one of the reasons why the Home Secretary is anxious to keep statistics is that if there is a large increase in majority verdicts he will reconsider the whole matter.

Mr. Crowder: I do not think that the Government realise the extent to which they are playing with fire in this Clause. A number of eventualities can, in my view, flow from it. One, which is extremely dangerous, is this. Every juror will know that the jury is entitled to return a verdict of 10 to two. One does not know what goes on in the jury room. It may be that as soon as the jurors get there the foreman will ask for a vote or a show of hands. If it is 10 to 2 or 11 to 1, he will say, "We need not discuss the matter further. Has anybody got a pack of cards, because we have to wait here for two hours?" If the jury is operating at somewhere like London Sessions, that could easily happen.
Suppose that, after the judge has told the jury that it can return a verdict of 10 to 2 after two hours, two of the jurors are in disagreement. It may be said to them, "Although this man is to be acquitted, is it fair that he should be sent out of this court with a slur upon him?" If that were said to a dissenting juror, as it is bound to be said, he would be a most unusual person if he did not say, "There is absolutely nothing in it in the final result. The man has to be acquitted on this basis, although I would not acquit him. In the circumstances, I will waive my objection so that he does not leave the court with a nasty stain on his character."
There is another eventuality to which reference has been made. Suppose that there is a nasty-minded, peverse juror who does not like the defendant, perhaps for social reasons or it may even be for political reasons. He will stand out, come what may. The accused person may be a civil servant, a policeman, somebody in an official position or someone in the City of London who has hitherto borne a very


high character. That man cannot say to the judge, "This will not do. I want a complete acquittal, not a majority acquittal. I therefore demand that I should be tried again so that my good name can be cleared". That course is not open to him.
Because I know that this matter will give rise to enormous complications for judges, whether they be recorders or High Court judges, I ask the Home Secretary to think again.

Mr. Buck: We have had a disappointing reply from the Under-Secretary of State, especially since his master, the Home Secretary, said in Committee that he would carefully consider this matter as he recognised the strong arguments in favour of our suggestion.

Mr. Taverne: It is true that my right hon. Friend said that he would consider the matter, but he made it clear that on balance he was in favour of retaining the subsection.

Mr. Buck: I am not suggesting that there has been a breach of an undertaking or anything of that character, but there was very little in the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech which suggested any concession to the arguments put forward from this side of the House and the argument which, no doubt, would have been made from the Government benches if there were not burning issues being considered elsewhere. One is tempted to ask what the position about majority verdicts is in some of the Common Market countries, but, unfortunately, the experts are not here to answer such questions.
The arguments which the Parliamentary Secretary has deployed are not convincing, and it seems that what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder) has just said goes a long way to demolishing them utterly.
The one additional point which emerges from what my hon. and learned Friend said is that it must be clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman that there will be far more majority verdicts than there are disagreements at the moment, so to correlate the position of a person who is subjected to a second-

class verdict with someone who is subjected to a disagreement will not take the matter much further. I agree that someone who is subjected to a disagreement has some sort of stigma. The question does not arise often, but, if there is one disagreement, there is a retrial and, in a high proportion of cases, there is then a conviction. In a case where there is a second disagreement, the accused person is discharged, but he has some sort of stigma attached to him in that two juries have failed to agree. But no system can be perfect, and I cannot think of a better way of dealing with that sort of situation.
I must express myself as extremely disappointed. It is an excessively retrograde step that we should unnecessarily introduce first- and second-class verdicts in this way.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to my suggestion as if the judge would be making private inquiries, but that is not the way it would work. It would be automatic, and the foreman of the jury would be instructed by the judge that he should jot on a piece of paper, which he should initial, whether the verdict was unanimous or, if it was not, what the voting was. That is hardly fairly summarised by referring to the judge making private inquiries. It would be an automatic part of the proceedings. There could even be forms drawn up by the clerk of the court so as to make the position clear on each count. The forms would be filled in by the foreman and handed to the judge.
That would meet the point which was troubling my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), because that could be seen by counsel for the defence and for the prosecution, so that there could be no suggestion of communication between judge and jury. That would meet the statistical point entirely. The judge could make the forms available to the Home Office in an anonymous way after he had finished his assize. That would meet the point utterly and, as that main point can be met in an almost entirely satisfactory manner, the Government ought to accept the principle of the Amendment and agree that, in another place, they will deal with the point in a way which is satisfactory to them.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 11.—(DISQUALIFICATION OF EX-PRISONERS FROM SERVING ON JURIES IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.)

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 9, line 32, to leave out 'five', and to insert 'ten'.
We now come to Clause 11 and the question of disqualifications from juries. In Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) said, at col. 411, that if the sentence of imprisonment permanently disqualifying persons from jury service under subsection (1,b) of the Clause were to be retained at five years or more, the period of temporary disqualification under subsection (1,a) following a sentence of three months in prison or more should be raised to 10 years.
The Government agreed that the two questions were interrelated, and we undertook to reconsider this for the Report stage. We have done that, and we have fallen in with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion.
The effect of this Amendment is to extend from five to 10 years the period of disqualification for jury service which would be the lot of anyone who has served at least three months in prison. Apart from meeting views expressed by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, this period of disqualification dovetails neatly with the period of exemption in the Amendment accepted earlier that persons concerned with the enforcement of law shall not serve on juries for 10 years after they have ceased that occupation.

Sir J. Hobson: All I desire to say is that I am grateful to the Government that they have found it possible to adopt the suggestion.

Mr. Carlisle: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I ask whether it is in order for me to say something on Amendment No. 76, which stands in my name and has been selected?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I do not think that it would be in order. I think that it is better to deal with Amendment No. 27, and then I would ask the hon. Gentleman to move his Amendment No. 76.

Amendment agreed to.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 76, in page 9, line 38, at the end to insert:

'or who having at any time served a sentence of imprisonment or detention of three months or more, has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment during the said period of ten years'.
Let me say at once that I do not propose to invite anyone to divide on the Amendment. It is a small point with regard to the disqualification of people for jury service, which was again raised in Committee.
The point which I wish to put to the hon. and learned Gentleman is this: is he satisfied that it is rational to exclude someone from jury service for 10 years who has been in prison for three months, but to ignore people who may have other convictions which have not carried prison sentences?
I appreciate that there are difficulties. One does not want to find among those who are excluded the person who has one conviction for dangerous driving or something of that nature. If the object is to exclude from a jury people who may be unfairly biased against the prosecution because they have this sort of sentence of imprisonment, it may not be nearly as important as the fact that, in the last year or two, they may have had further appearances before courts on charges of dishonesty. It is important that those who may be seriously biased against the prosecution should not go on juries any more than those who may be seriously biased against the accused.
Perhaps this provision could be considered again, to see whether it is adequate as it stands.

Mr. Taverne: I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but as he will understand, it is a difficult one to meet. In fact, we have found it impossible to meet.
If his Amendment were passed, it would mean, to take this as an illustration, that someone who was convicted of a motoring offence which carried imprisonment could be disqualified for a period of up to 20 years if it came at the end of the 10-year disqualification. One has to achieve a balance, as the Morris Committee on Juries pointed out, between securing the absence of undesirable people on a jury and not imposing a stigma on a man who has tried to right himself and become a responsible member of society.
It is true that someone who has a number of convictions which have not been sufficiently serious to carry terms of imprisonment will not be disqualified from serving on a jury. But, without redressing the balance too much the other way, and saying that someone should not have this stigma on him and should be available to perform one of the duties and rights of citizenship, I do not see a way of doing it without disqualifying someone who ought to be eligible.

Sir David Renton: I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not close his mind on this issue. I appreciate what he said, but as the majority verdicts Clause has been kept in the Bill it becomes ever more necessary to strengthen the Clause which we are now discussing.
The need to strengthen it will become even greater when the qualification for service on juries becomes as widely extended as the franchise. We may find, especially in parts of London, and some of our large cities—I think particularly of Liverpool, for example—that there will be a large number of people who have criminal records who will be eligible for jury service. I am not sure that subsection (1,a) will have the desired result of ensuring that we do not have too many people with criminal experience on juries. We need to be very careful about this, and, therefore, I reinforce what my hon. Friend said, and express the hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will keep an open mind about it.

Mr. Tavente: This question of qualification for jury service will have to be very carefully watched. We will continue to watch it, but I feel that subsection (1,a) is now drawn as restrictively against people with criminal records as one could hope to draw it, because it means that someone who has served three months in prison will be disqualified from jury service for 10 years. This is the effect of the Amendment which I moved earlier. In these circumstances, I would have thought that we had taken as many precautions as we could against undesirable jurors; but this is something which will have to continue to be watched, and this we shall do.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 12.—(RESTRICTIONS ON REFUSAL OF BAIL.)

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 11, line 32, to leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Taverne.]

Clause 14.—(RESTRICTIONS ON ISSUE OF SEARCH WARRANTS UNDER OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS ACT 1959.)

Sir Cyril Black: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 13, line 13, to leave out Clause 14.
This Clause has been written into the Bill in circumstances which are both remarkable and discreditable. It is alien to the whole tenor of the Bill because it has nothing to do with criminal justice, as proceedings under Section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act are not criminal proceedings. The Bill is based on an assumption of defectiveness of trial by jury under existing conditions. The Clause in effect enlarges the right of trial by jury. The Bill is designed to make the way of transgressors in general more hard, and their conviction more certain. The Clause is designed to make the way of pornographers more easy, and their condemnation more difficult. The purpose of the Clause has nothing to do with justice, but, as I hope to show, is conceived out of pique, and among other purposes is an attempt to rescue the Attorney-General from the risk of again having to display his own ineptitude.
The insertion of this Clause is a hole and corner proceeding from beginning to end. It was never debated on the Second Reading of the Bill, for the very good reason that it was not in the Bill as presented to Parliament, and as passed on Second Reading. It is now in the Bill as a result of an Amendment passed in Committee on 21st March last, and tabled only shortly before the meeting of that Committee on that day. No doubt the whole operation was designed in this way to attract a minimum of attention to what was being done, and to give a minimum of opportunity for opposition to be organised to what the Home Secretary had conceived.
Although the Amendment discussed in Committee on 21st March was tabled only a day or two before that date, it was in fact conceived and resolved upon at a much earlier point in time. At my request I had an interview with the


Leader of the House on 19th January last, more than two months before the consideration of the Clause in Committee. I went to see him because certain Members had tabled a Motion criticising my conduct in having initiated certain legal proceedings. I put to the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House, and as defender of the rights of minorities in the House, my view that an opportunity should be furnished by the Government for the matter to be debated, and for me to answer the criticism which certain Members had made of me in their Motion. The Leader of the House was unwilling to provide me with any special facilities to answer these allegations, but in the course of conversation he told me that the Home Secretary was extremely angry with me for having initiated these proceedings, and that he had decided to alter the law to make such action impossible by private citizens in the future.
This was told to me more than two months before this Amendment came before the Committee on 21st March. It was, therefore, conceived a very long time in advance of being put down for consideration by the Committee which dealt with the Bill, but it was put down at the last moment for what I must describe quite bluntly as the quite discreditable reasons and considerations which underlay the whole procedure.
The House may well ask why these extraordinary proceedings were embarked on. The answer is because of legal proceedings which I initiated in the courts of this country, and I do not think that the Home Secretary will deny that that is the reason why this Clause now appears in the Bill. I do not want to address the House at undue length, and I am seeking to contract as much as I can what I have to say, but I must say a little about those legal proceedings, because they are the very foundations on which the raison d'être of this Clause depends.
I took legal proceedings under Section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act in the case of what the Attorney-General described as an odious book entitled "Last Exit to Brooklyn". I was impelled to initiate legal proceedings only because the Director of Public Prosecutions had declined to do so, on advice given to him by the Attorney-General, and the

right hon. and learned Gentleman gave a number of extraordinary reasons to the House at the time for his unwillingness to take action in this matter. I do not want to go into these at length, but I want to refer to quite the most extraordinary of a number of extraordinary reasons which were given.
8.0 p.m.
The Attorney-General justified his failure to take proceedings because, he said, a leading medical authority had advised that only a small proportion of young people were likely to be depraved by reading the book. That must surely be one of the most cynical statements ever made in this House. How many young people need to be depraved by a book in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's judgment before he will be stirred to take proceedings? Is it sufficient that 100 young people are likely to be depraved, or must there be 1,000, or 10,000? Is it sufficient that 1 per cent. or 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. of the young people of this country should be depraved by a particularly obscene book? To justify a failure to take legal proceedings by the argument that only a small proportion might be affected is wholly deplorable and unworthy of the Attorney-General.
I initiated legal proceedings in this matter. I will not stand in a white sheet in that regard. I was fully entitled to do so and I would submit that, where a member of the public believes that the law is being infringed, he has not only a right but a duty to set afoot the necessary legal proceedings. I was involved in a heavy expenditure of time and effort and money over these proceedings.
Although I secured my object, the magistrate was unable to award me costs, because the Section does not provide that a successful person proceeding under that Section should receive them. If the case had gone against me, however, I could have been required to pay heavy costs. Thus, the law under this Section is already heavily biased on the side and in the interests of the publisher.
Some play has been made with the fact that the defendants in the proceedings, because I proceeded under Section 3, were deprived of the right of trial by jury which they would have had if I had acted under Section 2. At no point was


any request made to me or my legal advisers by the defendants that I should proceed under Section 2 instead of Section 3, although it was open to them to make that request.
Eight eminent witnesses were called by me during these proceedings and one, an eminent and experienced medical man, said:
This is an extremely dangerous book. If books give the idea that perverted sexual practices are normal and desirable, adolescents may well decide to experiment. Drug addiction, in the latest view, is an infectious disease. Anyone reading this book might easily imitate it, and this is a serious risk, not only for the individual but for society.
The magistrate held the book to be obscene and liable to deprave and corrupt and, in giving his verdict, he said:
I must tell you that this book in its descriptions goes beyond any book of that kind that we have seen in this court. One passage I am thinking of is more likely to deprave and corrupt than any of those cyclostyled horrors.
It is perhaps relevant to point out that this book has now also been prosecuted for obscenity in the courts of Canada. A lower court there found the book to be obscene and liable to deprave and corrupt and, on appeal, that decision was upheld unanimously by three judges in a higher court.
I find it literally amazing that the Attorney-General failed to do his duty in this matter and to take legal proceedings and thereby compelled me to proceed in a matter in which it was his duty to act. I have considered all the possible reasons for the Attorney-General failing to move in this matter and I am forced to conclude that there are many reasons—reasons that sit beside and behind him in the form of members of his own party who do not want to see obscene books prosecuted and whom he did not wish to displease by initiating proceedings in this matter.
I cannot understand why the Home Secretary is, as the Leader of the House told me, very angry with me for having initiated these proceedings. The Home Office is surely concerned about things like sexual perversion, rape, violence and drug addiction. We have eminent medical opinion that this book is likely to encourage people in these practices and I should have thought that the Home Secretary would take the view that I was assisting him in what he should be trying to achieve by acting in respect of this book to get it withdrawn from public circulation.
As I understand his case, the Home Secretary has two main justifications. He said in Committee that the police can proceed even if Clause 14 is written into the law and that is quite clear. But of course the Home Secretary and all of us know that individual constables do not initiate proceedings of this kind on their own judgment and responsibility. We know that it would be the exception rather than the rule even for a chief constable to do so.
We know that it is usual for the police to consult the Director of Public Prosecutions in these cases and to act in accordance with his advice. Assuming that, if the Clause becomes law, the right of private individuals to initiate proceedings is taken away, virtually the Director, acting generally upon the Attorney General's advice, becomes sole censor of literature in this country.
The Home Secretary gave a second reason in Committee:
I believe that the acceptance of this Clause would cure an anomaly without restricting in any significant sense the rights of private persons in regard to prosecution …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 21st March, 1967, c. 1006.]
But in advancing that argument, the right hon. Gentleman is less than frank. He must realise that the cost of initiating proceedings at the Old Bailey, for instance, is immensely high and that no private citizen would be likely to do so having regard to the costs.
But, of course, when, as we know, pornography is big business at present and the pornographers have great resources to fight cases, it is unthinkable that any private citizen should be expected to take upon himself the onus of a prosecution at the Old Bailey. So what the Home Secretary is doing is depriving the citizen of any right to set afoot proceedings against obscene publications.
I know why the Home Secretary is very angry with me. I know that my offence in his eyes is twofold. First, I have succeeded in proceedings against an obscene book—in his heart, he does not want such books proceeded against—and, second, I have exposed to public gaze the futility of the Attorney-General. These are the real reasons for the Clause.
My position in this matter is clear and plain. I am only too willing to leave these matters to the public authorities.


I do not wish to be involved personally, but I make one stipulation—that the public authorities should take action when it ought to be taken. That is what they are failing to do.
I would give one further example of a most extraordinary failure to act by the Attorney-General. My leading counsel in the proceedings which I brought drew my attention to another book. I do not propose to mention its name. It was proceeded against in a magistrates' court in the North of England, where it was held that the book was obscene and liable to deprave and corrupt. The case was taken to appeal and came before a court presided over by the Lord Chief Justice himself. He dismissed the case and said in terms that there was most clear evidence on which the lower court had been entitled to come to its decision.
Notwithstanding the Lord Chief Justice's condemnation of the book, when I wrote to the Attorney-General pointing out that the book had now been reprinted in a cheap edition and was being offered for sale widely at a low price, the Attorney-General wrote back to say that he did not propose to institute proceedings. It is this failure to act by the authorities in proper cases which has forced private citizens who do not wish to do so to set in motion the wheels of the law. The Government are now fortifying the inaction of the Attorney-General by seeking to enforce inaction on members of the public.
8.15 p.m.
The Government may steamroller the Clause through by the use of the Whips—although some hon. Gentlemen opposite will vote for it against their convictions—but they are doing something the effect of which is to gladden the hearts of the pornographers and to sadden the hearts of that large majority of the nation who still believe in decency.
I have heard many speeches made by the Home Secretary on the subject of obscene publications, both in the House and in Committee. I admire his great gifts in many respects, but it is not unfair to say that I cannot recall one instance when, inside or outside the House, he has raised his voice to condemn the evils of this flood of pornographic litera-

ture which is so prevalent on the bookstalls today.
The right hon. Gentleman has done more than any other hon. or right hon. Member to bring comfort and encouragement to those who are engaged in these publications and he is seeking today to do something to open a little wider the floodgates of indecent literature. For this he will be judged and condemned by the nation. Even if the less respectable booksellers in Soho should erect a tawdry monument to him out of the gratitude of their hearts, the nation at large will look eagerly to the day, not far removed, when he has gone from the office which he at present occupies, to which he has added no lustre and which he will leave unwept and unsung.

Sir Charles Taylor: The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) for two reasons; first, because he has moved the Amendment and, secondly—and more important—because he instituted this action against "Last Exit to Brooklyn".
It was I who first brought the book—at that time I did not mention its name; today is the first time that I have mentioned its name in public—to the notice of Parliament and the Attorney-General. I should, perhaps, explain why I did that. The book was sent to me by people I had not met—by a very famous bookseller in Oxford called Blackwells. They sent me the book and said, in effect, "Do you not think that something should be done about it?" I confess that when I read it I was absolutely horrified at what it contained.
I questioned the Attorney-General about it, again without mentioning the book's name. I asked him whether he was prepared to take proceedings against it. I gave him a copy of the book so that he should see it for himself, but the answer I got was "No"—he was not prepared to recommend the Director of Public Prosecutions to take action.
Not satisfied with that, I wanted to explain to the House what the book contained and to refer to some of the dreadful passages in it. In an effort c, make that explanation—and because I did not want to advertise the publication—I asked for strangers to withdraw so that I could explain it to the House in private. I


wanted to show that I was not an old fuddy-duddy and that I was not worried about anything but what was contained in this filthy book. The Government resisted my plea that the House should hear what I had to say in private. I wanted strangers to withdraw so that people should not know the name of the book and should not hear some of the disgusting passages in it.
Then my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon came to see me about it and offered to take proceedings against the book personally. As we know, he did, and the matter came up in the magistrates' court, where the magistrate found it guilty of obscenity. I should have thought that the Attorney-General would, at that stage, have said, "I was wrong about this. I shall immediately institute proceedings against the book through the Director of Public Prosecutions". But he did not do that. It was only after a very long time that he was nudged—perhaps pushed by public opinion and by the decision of the magistrates' court—into taking proceedings against the book, and we know that proceedings are shortly to be taken against it at the Old Bailey.
The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon for taking these proceedings and for showing up the wrong decision of the Attorney-General—and, perhaps, of his legal advisers—in respect of this book. However, Clause 14 will put an end to private proceedings of this type being taken in future. It is wrong that the Government, in order, as it were, to do some face-saving for the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary, should get the approval of Parliament to stop these private prosecutions from being brought in future. It is, therefore, indeed wrong that the Clause should have been slipped into the Bill.
Whatever the Home Secretary may say, the Clause was slipped in at the last moment. It was slipped in by the Home Secretary in Committee. We know that the right hon. Gentleman is liberal minded about books and plays and their publication. But the country is getting sick of these pornographic books and plays. Many people, like me, enjoy a slightly risque story or joke, as long as it is funny. This book, however, was not funny. It was perfectly disgusting from beginning to end. I do not believe

in general censorship, but there are times when publications go too far. It is when they do that that somebody must protect teenagers as well as older people from the disgusting things that may come into print.
I must be frank and tell the Attorney-General that in this case he shirked his responsibilities. He was forced into taking proceedings eventually, but originally he shirked his responsibilities. We owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon for, at his own expense, saying, "If the Attorney-General does not act, I will. I will see that action is taken." He was successful.
It was a rotten trick to push in Clause 14 just before the Committee stage. It was a face-saving trick to get the backing of Parliament to stop what I believe was not only a necessary but, I am glad to say, successful prosecution against "Last Exit to Brooklyn".

Mr. Edward Lyons: I have listened to the recent contributions to this debate with some surprise and I have heard criticisms of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General which are completely out of place. In determining, in the first place, not to institute legal proceedings, my right hon. and learned Friend acted solely on the advice available to him. It would have been entirety wrong for him to have ignored the vast weight of advice proffered to him. [HON. MEMBERS "Why?"] I will come to the reasons shortly.
I urge the House to consider what certain newspapers said about the book. The Attorney-General knew that they had said it. The Scotsman referred to the book as
… one of the most meaningful landmarks in the literature of its generation.
The Listener—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite have asked for it and they are going to get it—referred to the publication in these terms:
No book could well be less obscene.
The Irish Times summarised it favourably. The Director of Public Prosecutions engaged a leading literary expert from a university, who told him that the method of exposure seemed to him to be "sternly moral and honest". A psychiatrist was consulted and, as a result of considering these various opinions—

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. I am beginning to feel a little uneasy about all this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have heard that there may be proceedings pending about a book which was first mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor). Now the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) is reading a great number of encomiums on the book by various literary authorities. I have not read the book and would not say anything about it if I had.
We are discussing an Amendment relating to the general law of obscene publications and I am wondering whether, if proceedings are pending—and I gather from the Home Secretary that they are—it is in order to discuss matters which may be sub judice but which should be strictly relevant to the subject of a general alteration of the law as proposed in Clause 14. In other words, should we be discussing the merits or otherwise of a book which, for all I know, may be as pure as the driven snow or as obscene as "Petronius?"
If we are going to be told what the Irish Times says about certain books or what the Scotsman thinks about books which are to be prosecuted, I suggest that the hon. Member for Bradford, East should be careful about whether or not he is prejudicing sub judice proceedings—and I should have thought that it would be doubtful whether we would get on very well with the Clause.

Mr. Hooson: Further to that point of order. It would seem that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has raised his point of order rather late, because he listened with equanimity to the attacks made on the book before making it. I have not read the book and I express no opinions about it. If there is a pending prosecution, it would seem to be equally fair to have had the views, which no doubt have great literary merit, of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), who indeed expressed their views forcefully, and the views of the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons), and I see no reason why he should not quote other views about the book.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has raised a point of order on two grounds: first, on the ground of relevancy, and, secondly, on the ground of sub judice. On the ground of relevancy, I listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) said, and I was rather concerned about it. It made some very serious allegations against both the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General. I thought that it was right to allow the hon. Member to proceed because, as I understand, the Clause we are now considering was not in the Bill when the Bill was before the House on Second Reading. Therefore, I allowed a rather wider debate than I think would have been permitted on Report if the Clause had been in the Bill in its original form.
On the question of sub judice, the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) is, as I understand him, about to make observations about another book—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then about the same book. If he makes observations about the same book, I think that it is perfectly in order for him, in speaking to the debate, to make comments of the same kind that have already been made in the speeches of the hon. Member for Wimbledon and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor).

Mr. Lyons: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
To conclude this part of my remarks, it was as a result of considering all these matters that the Attorney-General felt that he could not institute proceedings in relation to a book that he himself described as odious, and, on that advice no one could conceivably blame him—

Mr. Buck: The hon. Member refers to advice, and in explaining what the advice was he has referred to a series of quotations from different parts of the Press. What is the advice which he alleges the Attorney-General received, and about which the hon. Gentleman apparently knows so intimately?

Mr. Lyons: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. I have already said that the Attorney-General consulted one of our leading literary experts—and


said so in this Chamber some months ago—and also asked the advice of a psychiatrist about the effect of the book on persons reading it. I do not know what sort of advice the hon. Gentleman thinks the Attorney-General should have taken, but all my right hon. and learned Friend did was to consult available authorities. He did not get information and advice which led him to believe that a prosecution would probably result in a conviction.
We must appreciate that if we prosecute a book of this kind, which has been described as difficult to read, and so give it a lot of publicity, then if the prosecution fails we get a massive sale of the book, make a fortune for the author and thereby do precisely the opposite of what we intended. It is, therefore, important that in deciding to prosecute we should have considerable hopes of obtaining a conviction. It was because of these matters that the Attorney-General did not feel—

Mr. Carlisle: The latter part of the hon. Member's argument falls, in my opinion, because the Attorney-General is now to prosecute. On the first part, with respect, what he is saying justifies the argument that the private individual should still be free to take proceedings if he disagrees with the advice of a Government Department. It is not a question of the Attorney-General's sincerity, but of the fact that the private individual should be entitled to take action if he disagrees with the advice of a Government Department.

Mr. Lyons: That is rather a different point. At the time when the Attorney-General decided not to prosecute, he acted on advice and was behaving perfectly properly. Subsequently, a private prosecution was instituted, and what has been revealed by that prosecution is a body of opinion which takes a contrary view and, furthermore, the existence of a magistrate—and this is really all that it has proved so far—who feels that the case is proved. In the light of that further evidence, and taking that into account, the Attorney-General has instituted proceedings, so he has at all times behaved perfectly properly.
The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) says that this particular incident justifies keeping the power of the private

citizen to take proceedings. I submit that it does not. First, one does not yet know the outcome of the proceedings being instituted by the Attorney-General and, in any event, there are other considerations. I can conceive of a dishonest publisher who wanted to publicise a book that was on the borderline of obscenity, seeing to it that proceedings were instituted under the present law merely to get the big publicity that the book would not otherwise get, and thereby ensure it a tremendous sale.

Mr. Clegg: Does the hon. Member recollect that the name of this book was given in a Motion published on the Order Paper by several hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Lyons: That is beside the point. The attempt to prosecute or pillory the book, particularly if the prosecution does not succeed, will give the book a massive circulation; and all of us must be sorry about that. The Government have been criticised in relation to the way in which—

Mr. James Dance: rose—

Mr. Lyons: I have given way a great deal and there are still many Amendments to be dealt with.
It has been suggested that the Government does not deal strongly or energetically with obscene publications, but what are the figures? In 1965, there were 49 prosecutions under the Obscene Publications Act and there were 50 in 1964. In both those years the figures were higher than in previous years and in 1964 401,000 books and 579,000 magazines were seized as obscene by the Customs and the police. When criticising, hon. Members should remember that the Government are active in this field, but they do not want to enable publicity to be given to all kinds of obscene publication by the actions of private citizens who may not have the best motives, or whose motives while good may be misguided.

Mr. Dance: Surely the hon. Member must agree that the publicity which was given to this book was given by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg)? When my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) raised the matter, he tried to get it debated in


private. It was entirely due to the intervention of the hon. Member for Barking, supported by the Government, that the debate was not in private. That is why great publicity was given to the book.

Mr. Lyons: It surprises me that anyone should seriously believe that we could have a debate about this book, not name it on the Floor of the House and—

Mr. Hogg: There must he some end to this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are debating an Amendment to omit Clause 14 from a Bill which is a serious Bill about the administration of criminal justice. It seems to be degenerating into an argument about a book which I do not know whether the Home Secretary has read, but which I have certainly not read. This is obscuring the whole purpose of the debate. I realise that for the reasons you have given discussion of some aspects of the matter must be germane to this subject, but has not the point been reached when you might require the House to return to the subject of debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Obviously, there are some limits bey which this debate must not go and I think that those limits are being very nearly reached. On the other hand, the Clause raises the whole question whether private individuals should or should not be allowed to prosecute in the case of obscene publications. So long as reference is made to this particular book, advocating on one side or the other the desirability of such prosecutions, I think that it is in order.

Mr. Lyons: I have not read this book, but it does not seem necessary to read the book in order to consider the principle involved. The effect of the Clause, I hope, will be to enable juries—we have heard much about juries today—ordinary men and women, to consider the decencies or otherwise of books. It seems to me that they are much better equipped than the ordinary magistrate to do so.

Mr. Buck: As I understand it, the Clause does not have the effect which has just been indicated by the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons). Perhaps the Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong. It has the effect that proceedings can still be taken in a magistrates' court. I see the Home Secre-

tary confirming that that is so. So the hon. Gentleman's last point falls, as I hope to demonstrate that all his other points fall.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Perhaps I should explain what my nod meant. Whether or not the rest of my hon. Friend's argument falls, what the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) says about my hon. Friend's last point is right.

Mr. Edward Lyons: It is true that prosecutions without a jury can continue with the leave of the Attorney-General. Private individuals who wish to take action will, in future, have to take action by bringing a prosecution before a jury.

Mr. Buck: Now the hon. Gentleman is going back somewhat on what he said. However, without going into that further, I want to make two very short points. First, I must express my extreme surprise that we should be discussing the book, "Last Exit to Brooklyn" tonight. I doubt whether we are in order. This matter is sub judice and I am, therefore, surprised that we are discussing it.

Mr. Deputeaker: Perhaps the Home Secreta help the Chair. Am I right in thinking that there are any actual proceedings pending?

Mr. Hogg: Yes; of course there are.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a little late for us to consider that point, but there are proceedings pending.

Mr. Buck: I gathered that that is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was complaining about. However, now that we have gone right over the edge, I can only say this. The hon. Member for Bradford, East thought, it seemed, that in the interval between the Attorney-General first deciding not to prosecute and then to prosecute, the book must have been rewritten. The first time, according to the hon. Gentleman, the Attorney-General was right not to prosecute. A little later the Attorney-General was right to prosecute. The book remained the same.
The action taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) has brought about a good result,


in that action was taken in respect of the book. It is preposterous for the hon. Gentleman to indulge in these intellectual gymnastics in order to try to defend the Attorney-General. It is surprising that the Attorney-General has not decided to be present to indulge in his intellectual gymnastics in his own defence.
That is all that I want to say about the case of, "Last Exit to Brooklyn", a book which I have not read, but which, I gather, is on the premises, because we have—so I am told—an obscene publications locker in the Library where books of this character are to be found cheek by jowl with Archbold's Criminal Pleading and Evidence. This is a situation similar to the fact that "bastards" and "barristers" are to be found in the same volume of Halsbury's Laws of England. The book is here, and perhaps in future any hon. Member who desires to can read it. I gather that it is not a very good book.
Secondly, I regard it as a bad thing to infringe the right of the ordinary individual to bring an action about a matter of this character. It is quite wrong that the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutors should be the arbiters in this matter. Whatever happens when the case is filially determined, what has recently happened about the book has illustrated the point and proved it beyond a peradventure. If we get an Attorney-General or a Director of Public Presecutions who is particularly liberal in his approach to these matters, the place could be flooded with obscenity, because he would not allow prosecutions to take place in an easy and convenient way.
It is in a situation such as that the citizen should have the right to step in. It is in that situation that in the past the citizen has had the right and has exercised it. It is right that this right should continue. There can be no real reason for infringing this right by the inclusion of the Clause in the Bill.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Perhaps I may begin with two disclaimers. First, like most hon. Members who have addressed the House, I have not read "Last Exit to Brooklyn", but, unlike them, I do not propose, not having read it, to discuss it. Second, I disclaim any feeling of anger towards the hon. Member for

Wimbledon (Sir C. Black). Several times he said that he believed that I was angry with him—

Sir C. Black: I was told so by the Leader of the House.

Mr. Jenkins: I must not say that the hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he is told by the Leader of the House—[Interruption.]—but I give him that assurance. It appeared to me, from his closing remarks, that he was a good deal more angry with me than I am with him. My feelings towards the hon. Gentleman are not anger but are rather like those of the man who was asked what he felt towards the Austro-Hungarian Empire—if the hon. Gentleman did not exist, we would have to invent him.
I am, therefore, in no way influenced by feelings of anger, and neither am I influenced in bringing forward this Clause by what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General did or did not decide at different stages, although I think that what he did was perfectly proper and there is a good defence of his action on both occasions, in relation to "Last Exit to Brooklyn".
I have long believed, and have long put forward the view, that it is desirable, where the defence of literary merit is to be tested before a court, that that is eminently an issue which should be tested before a jury and not before a single magistrate. I advocated that view strongly in a private capacity as a Member of the House in 1964, when the Obscene Publications Act of that date was before the House. I took that view long before the question of "Last Exit to Brooklyn" came up. When the Bill was before us in 1964, there was a very narrow division of opinion in the Standing Committee, and the Government of the day carried the Committee by only nine votes to eight against such a provision being brought in, that is, against the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions being necessary.
What we were told then by the Government of the day—I can now see force in the argument, perhaps, a little more than I then did—is that it is necessary to retain the magistrates' court procedure to deal with bulk hard-core pornography, and that, if anyone being dealt with by such


procedure were to have the right automatically to opt for trial by jury, the procedure might be clogged up. But a concession was given in the form of a statement by the then Solicitor-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), saying that—I have it here and, perhaps, I should quote it directly—
Where inquiries are being made about an article which the prosecuting authorities consider to be prima facie obscene, and the publisher indicates his determination to publish or to continue to publish, in circumstances which would constitute a criminal offence, then, in the absence of any special circumstances, and satisfactory evidence of an offence by him being available, it would ordinarily be the policy of the Director of Public Prosecutions to proceed against that publisher by way of prosecution.
The significance of "by way of prosecution" is that the publisher if he has faith in the work he is publishing, has the advantage of trial by jury but also suffers the disadvantage that, should he go down and should his faith prove ill-founded, he is open to much greater penalties than if he takes the easy procedure in the magistrates' court.
Therefore, it is a procedure which someone would undergo only if he wished the article which he was publishing to be tested because he had faith in it. It is not likely that the hard-core pornographer would wish to undergo it. I agree that hard-core pornography is a problem—it is not, perhaps, the most serious of all the social evils with which we are confronted in this country, but it is none the less a problem—and the hard-core pornographer would be most unlikely to wish to put himself in that position.
It did not occur to most people that that undertaking, apart from the slightly cautious nature of its words, did not cover the position of private prosecutions. The picture painted by some hon. Gentlemen earlier in the debate rather suggested that the right to take a private prosecution against an obscene book was most cherished and frequently used by small people throughout the country. In fact, it has not been used since the defence of literary merit came into operation by anyone other than the hon. Member for Wimbledon.
I make no complaint against him for doing so under the law as it stands. But the previous Government took the view

that it was right to give an undertaking of that sort, and there is a little more to it than trial by jury. That is important: but there is also trial in the High Court, with the opportunity of continuous deployment of evidence, as opposed to trial in a magistrates' court, with adjournment from one half day to another, involving extreme difficulties about the deployment of a coherent case. It does not seem sensible to impose such a limitation on the prosecuting authorities of the Government and allow the complete loophole to private citizens to be able to prosecute. We are not removing that right. They can do so, but only if they give an opportunity to those whom they are prosecuting to incur the risk of greater penalties and also the opportunity to deploy their defence in more suitable circumstances and before a jury.
I do not think it unreasonable that private citizens should be in the same position as the Government in that respect. The main argument I have heard is the financial argument. Clearly if this were a right which was constantly exercised by small people, one might have to have some regard to it. But the hon. Gentleman is the only person who has exercised the right for a great number of years and I cannot believe that he, with his burning zeal on this issue and supported as he might be by several other hon. Members, would not be able to raise the costs of dealing with this matter in a higher court if it were necessary for him so to do.
I think that this is a perfectly reasonable provision. It leaves the private citizen free to prosecute if he so wishes, but also creates a position in which the defendant has the opportunity to defend his work, if he has faith in it, in a higher court and before a jury.

Mr. Hogg: This is an important debate, although it has taken place at a slightly unfortunate hour. Although I happen to think that the right hon. Gentleman has behaved very badly about this, I do not think that it is an easy matter and I do not want anything that I say to indicate that I think that it is.
I must, however, say at once that the skill with which the right hon. Gentleman manages to deploy plausible arguments which are paradoxical to the verge of absurdity never ceases to amaze me. The Clause is put in—one would think if one


had read it, which few of us apparently have done in the course of the debate—to stop what, for one reason or another, the right hon. Gentleman thinks of as an abuse. He was very polite to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), but in the end he clearly showed that he thought that what he was seeking to prevent was an abuse, and his great defence of having introduced the Clause is that the "abuse" scarcely ever happens, that it has happened only once, that the only "abuser" is my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon.
The right hon. Gentleman says that, of course, if it had been done every day he would have had to take account of that and yield to popular pressure. If this is to be the brave front which the right hon. Gentleman presents to abuse, I can only say that I do not think he will remain Home Secretary very long. His business is to stop frequent, not occasional, abuses. It becomes an absolutely extraordinary argument for him to say that the provision which he found it necessary to introduce at a very peculiar stage of the Bill is concerned with something which scarcely ever happens, has happened only once, when it was done by a most respected Member of the House of whom the right hon. Gentleman said that, if he had not already existed, he, the right hon. Gentleman, would have had to invent him.
If one considers the Clause one sees who it is that the right hon. Gentleman prefers to my hon. Friend whom he would have had to invent. We all know that the Director of Public Prosecutions is a great benefactor of the Bar, so we shall not say anything against him, but a constable can do this. A constable in an obscure village in Wimbledon, a remote country parish, can bring this prosecution. He can put this book, whatever it is called, into the dock, but that cannot be done by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, not by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor); they are proscribed.
Only a constable and, apparently, the book reviewer of the Dublin Times—are good enough to judge whether this book should stand its trial before a Metropolitan magistrate. This is the Clause which the right hon. Gentleman inserted clandestinely into the Bill halfway through the Committee stage. I must say that I find

his conduct extremely surprising, not to say subject to criticism.
We all know—it would be naive to pretend that we do not—why the right hon. Gentleman has done this. It may be that, as usual, the Leader of the House was inaccurate when he described the right hon. Gentleman as being filled with anger towards my hon. Friend. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurances about that. He is far too genial to be filled with anger. He did it because my hon. Friend had won his case. If my hon. Friend had lost his case, the right hon. Gentleman would not have bothered, but my hon. Friend won his case and won it to such purpose that he persuaded not only the magistrate, but also the right hon. and learned and absent Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General, of course, received the extraordinary help, rather like a sort of Hannibal's elephants, of the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons), who sprang to the defence of the Attorney-General. But I must say that the hon. Gentleman must have frightened the Attorney-General, or will frighten him if the Attorney-General ever ventures to read HANSARD, by the extraordinary arguments which he put. The Attorney-General has undoubtedly been very wet about this. I cannot imagine why the Attorney-General has not attended our debate. It would have been a great illumination to hear the explanation of this legal luminary of his extraordinary tergiversation over this business.
9.0 p.m.
I will not discuss the merits of the occasion when he said in the House that he did not think that he could get a conviction—it depends on whom he briefs to prosecute, I suppose. Apparently, this book was so glorious as to impress the reviewer of the Dublin Times, and that frightened him off. The advisers of the Attorney-General are the Listener and the Dublin Times, whose reviewers have had the advice of a psychiatrist. Apparently, not only are we to have trial by jury with a decision by majority, but a filtering by the psychiatrist, and a sort of grand jury composed of the reviewers of the Dublin Times.
Perhaps that is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman did. At any rate, he funked losing his case. No sooner


had my hon. Friend won his case than the Attorney-General changed his mind. The right hon. and learned and absent Gentleman, whom we would dearly like to see on the Government Front Bench at the moment, having funked bringing a prosecution and a prosecution of a different kind having been brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, who, whatever their limitations as legal advisers, are at least up to the psychiatrist of the reviewer of the Dublin Times, and my hon. Friends having won the case, then the Attorney-General brings up horse, foot and artillery; The Director of Public Prosecutions is lumbered into operation. Proceedings are pending.
They cannot be right both times. Talk about unanimity! The Attorney-General is not unanimous with himself. Still less is he unanimous with the right hon. Gentleman, because no sooner has the Attorney-General manœuvred the Director of Public Prosecutions, and brought into operation the creaking machinery of the criminal law—and no doubt prosecution will ultimately be made at the Old Bailey, if a court can be found vacant, what with all the criminals that the right hon. Gentleman is quite rightly seeking to apprehend at the Old Bailey—no sooner does the right hon. and learned and absent Gentleman the Attorney-Gentleman decide to change his mind and to prosecute, than the right hon. Gentleman, in Committee, proceeds to insert clandestinely this Clause, to stop anyone every doing a thing which my hon. Friend has successfully done.
Talk about unanimity! The Government are starting in different directions and will never meet so long as this world continues. The Gilbertian situation which the right hon. Gentleman has brought about is not designed to bring the criminal law into greater repute or to increase the right hon. Gentleman's reputation for wisdom, great though it may be, let alone maintain it at an adequate level.
This Bill is about criminal justice. It is designed to modernise our machinery of criminal law. It is to
Amend the law relating to the proceedings of criminal courts, including the law relating to evidence, and to the qualification of jurors, in such proceedings and to appeals in criminal cases; to reform existing methods and pro-

vide new methods of dealing with offenders; to make further provision for the treatment of offenders and the management of prisons and other institutions".

Mr. Weitzman: This is all great fun, but are we not discussing Clause 14? What has this got to do with it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is replying to observations made in the debate.

Mr. Hogg: I think that it will gradually begin to dawn upon the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The real point about this is that this is a serious and important Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has brought before the country in order to defeat crime. He has rightly sought the support of the whole House for the provisions of the Bill. If there had been some abuse to be remedied he would have introduced into this Bill, as one of its principal provisions, the prevention of abuses by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, and it would have been given a Second reading.
We would have debated it, but alas, no. Only when my hon. Friend won his case did the Home Secretary introduce into a Bill which was really designed for quite a different purpose a Clause which has, as its principal purpose, the object of giving effect to one of the right hon. Gentleman's venial little quirks—his desire to liberalise the law on obscenity.
I am not saying that this is an easy matter. I do not want to pretend that I think it to be so. It fell to my lot in another place to lead the House when a noble Friend of mine attacked "Lady Chatterley" after the verdict. I had a very difficult speech to make from the Government Bench. The last thing which I wish to do is to criticise the right hon. Gentleman for having taken a view about a difficult matter. But I am bound to say, having thought about this subject for many years, that I do not think that I can take the entirely facile view which the right hon. Gentleman seems to take about the production of obscene literature, whether it be what he calls the hard core of obscene pornography—I do not know what "the hard core of obscene pornography" means when translated into legal language—or whether it be books masquerading as literature but selling as pornography. I do not take the


view that these books do no harm. I have yet to hear the Home Secretary express such a view. I think that he is afraid that his literary friends would think less of him if he said boldly what I believe he is beginning to think after having been Home Secretary for some time.
Humanity, over many centuries, has come to believe that good books at least do good and provide inspiration. It would be a paradox if books which were intended to deprave and corrupt did not deprave and corrupt. There have been many disturbing events during the last five years, since we passed the Act, largely at the instigation of the right hon. Gentleman. There was the Moors case. And what may have corrupted in the Moors case was no mean literary product; it was the works of de Sade himself. I have known cases where murder may have been committed as a result of someone having read obscene literature.
There is an unmistakeable connection between most of the books which have come into prominent dispute in recent years and violence and brutality allied with sex; because pornography is not merely the titillation of the sexual instinct. One will find in almost every case that the descriptions are allied with cruelty. I have not read the book in question and I make no comment about it. But I believe that crimes of violence are inspired by obscene literature.
I am much more disturbed about the repeated reports, the deep reports, in the Press, based on accurate and specific investigation, that London and some other of our cities, but London in particular, are becoming the harbours and exploiting grounds of commercial pornography masquerading as decent literature—the little back rooms in the shops, the pretence at respectability on the outside. It is very remarkable that the Labour Party, which is usually so hard on private enterprise when it sells detergents or something utterly harmless openly, and as a result of advertisement, should be so zealous in protecting people who, for profit and for nothing else, seek to demoralise the human community. I should have thought that our greatest support would come from the party opposite. I can only say that I am disappointed to find that that is not so.
The Home Secretary has inserted a prohibition in his Bill to give effect to one of his private and not universally accepted quirks about public policy. He is not to allow a free vote on this, I suppose, any more than he allowed a free vote on majority verdicts. We shall allow a free vote. I know which way I shall vote. I shall vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, and I hope that as many of my hon. Friends as agree with me will do the same.
The situation as I see it is this. The law of obscenity has many pitfalls for the enforcing authorities. The hon. and learned Member for Bradford, East developed one of them. It may fail. If it fails, it advertises the book. It if fails and advertises the book, the very thing one sought to suppress gets an enormous sale and make enormous profits.
I do not envy the enforcing authorities in their judgment in this matter, but they have been unforgiveably lax in recent years. I believe that they lost their nerve over "Lady Chatterley", and that it was well becoming of my hon. Friend to put a little backbone into the authorities by showing that, where they were afraid, there were citizens who were prepared to exercise their rights and succeed. Indeed, it had the effect of causing the Attorney-General to go into reverse and prosecute the very same book where, previously, he had refused.
It is said that where there is a defence of literary merit, in all cases there should be trial by jury—or not in all cases, not where the Director of Public Prosecutions brings the summary proceedings, not where the village constable brings them, but only when my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon tries to bring summary proceedings. I wonder why. What is there in the village constable which give him the right to pontificate about the literary merit of a book so as to make it legitimate for him to bring proceedings when hon. Members of this House may not?
What is there about a Metropolitan magistrate which makes him supremely incapable of deciding what is meritorious? What is there about 12 people who, for all their virtues, have been chosen with a pin and will soon be chosen off the voters' list? Why are they so superior to the man appointed by the right hon. Gentleman's noble Friend


the Lord Chancellor that only they can do so without the intermediary of the village constable?
That is the Clause which we are now asked to accept. The only reason is that the right hon. Gentleman has a history in this matter. He is trying to live up to his reputation and aspiration. His aspiration was to be a great, liberal Home Secretary, and there are worse things to be. However, what the country needs at the moment is a Home Secretary who will re-establish respect for law, morality and order. What is more, after a little experience of office, the right hon. Gentleman is beginning to learn that,

too. Nothing was more striking in his speech than his admission that he was beginning to be converted to the Act of 1964, which he criticised so bitterly when it went through the House. What has converted him is the experience of responsibility. It is the experience of what is going on, the experience of the facts of life which he is learning for the first time. I only wish that he had learned them in time to stop this wretched little Clause going into an otherwise admirable Bill.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 89.

Division No. 325.]
AYES
[9.14 p.m.


Allen, Scholefield
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Anderson, Donald
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Moyle, Roland


Archer, Peter
Hamling, William
Murray, Albert


Ashley, Jack
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Norwood, Christopher


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Haseldine, Norman
Ogden, Eric


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hattersley, Roy
O'Malley, Brian


Barnett, Joel
Hazell, Bert
Orbach, Maurice


Beaney, Alan
Henig, Stanley
Orme, Stanley


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hilton, W. S.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hooley, Frank
Pardoe, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Hooson, Emlyn
Park, Trevor


Binns, John
Horner, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brooks, Edwin
Howie, W.
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rees, Merlyn


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hynd, John
Reynolds, G. W.


Coleman, Donald
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Concannon, J. D.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, T. A. (Rhondda, W.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Kenyon, Clifford
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dell, Edmund
Lawson, George
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dewar, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Slater, Joseph


Dickens, James
Lee, John (Reading)
Small, William


Dobson, Ray
Lestor, Miss Joan
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Driberg, Tom
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Swingler, Stephen


Dunnett, Jack
Loughlin, Charles
Taverne, Dick


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Luard, Evan
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Eadie, Alex
Lubbock, Eric
Urwin, T. W.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ellis, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


English, Michael
McBride, Nell
Wallace, George


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacDermot, Niall
Watkins, David (Consett)


Faulds, Andrew
Macdonald, A. H.
Weitzman, David


Fernyhough, E.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackie, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Whitlock, William


Foley, Maurice
MacPherson, Malcolm
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Foster, Sir John
Mallalleu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marquand, David
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gourlay, Harry
Maxwell, Robert
Yates, Victor


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mikardo, Ian



Gregory, Arnold
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. Harper and Mr. Armstrong.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Molloy, William





NOES


Awdry, Daniel
Glover, Sir Douglas
Onslow, Cranley


Balniel, Lord
Glyn, Sir Richard
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grant, Anthony
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Grieve, Percy
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gurden, Harold
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pym, Francis


Blaker, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Body, Richard
Heseltine, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hiley, Joseph
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Braine, Bernard
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Robson Brown, Sir William


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott, Nicholas


Bullus, Sir Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sharpies, Richard


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Tapsell, Peter


Clegg, Walter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Loveys, W. H.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Crowder, F. P.
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
McMaster, Stanley
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maddan, Martin
Ward, Dame Irene


Dance, James
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Webster, David


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Athford)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L, C,
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Doughty, Charles
Miscampbell, Norman
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Drayson, G. B.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Monro, Hector
Wylie, N. R.


Elliott, R. w. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
More, Jasper



Errington, Sir Eric
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Neave, Airey
Sir C Black and Sir C. Taylor.


Forteecue, Tim
Nott, John

Clause 23.—(PUNISHMENT OF PERSISTENT OFFENDERS.)

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 77, in page 16, line 10, after 'conduct', to insert 'the gravity of the offence'.
I hope that the Minister of State's reply to the Amendment, in view of what happened in Committee, will please us. The Clause deals with the power to impose an extended sentence rather than preventive detention for anyone who commits an offence for which the maximum sentence is more than two years' imprisonment. The court may impose an extended sentence if it believes that it is expedient because of the accused's previous conduct and the likelihood of his committing further offences.
What concerns me is that this wording is in danger of catching just the people whom we do not want to catch. The old lag who has committed many petty crimes is the sort of person who is likely to have the type of previous conduct referred to in the Clause and likely by his background, to commit further offences, but is surely not the sort of person who should get the extended sentence of perhaps several year's imprisonment.
The Amendment would include among the things which the court much consider before giving an extended sentence the gravity of the offence. In many cases

under the previous rules, people were sentenced to preventive detention because they had bad records, although the offence then being dealt with was comparatively minor. The Minister of State referred to such a case, that of the person who was given preventive detention for stealing a raincoat—a sentence which was reduced by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The Clause increases the danger of a person being given an extended sentence because of his previous conduct and despite the gravity of the offence with which he is charged. The Clause should apply where it is justified by the gravity of the offence. The Minister of State undertook in Committee to consider this again. She objected to the word "nature" in our original Amendment, saying that it was ambiguous, but agreed that the gravity of the offence should be considered by the court. She suggested that it was unnecessary, as she believed that it was covered by the term "previous conduct" of the accused.
I do not believe that this is so. "Previous conduct" in criminal courts has acquired a meaning over the years of conduct previous to the offence with which a man is charged. One says to a police officer giving antecedents, "Am I not right in saying that he has an excellent previous conduct?" This would exclude the offence with which the man was charged and relate only to previous cases. The likelihood of committing


further offences relates to the previous conduct. If we are taking the power to give a longer sentence than normal for that offence the gravity of the offence with which a man is charged ought also to be considered.
If it is not immodest to say so, the Amendment is an admirable improvement, in that it brings the court's attention to the third point which is necessary before giving an extended sentence. I hope that the Minister of State will accept it.

Mr. Grieve: I support the Amendment, which was moved so cogently by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), and earnestly plead with the Government to give it their consideration and approval. I wish to develop the reasoning of my hon. Friend and to refer to the previous procedure of preventive detention.
When the new form of preventive detention came in with the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, we thought that here was going to be a means of protecting society against the persistent and serious wrongdoer. But what happened? We found, in one case after another, that the person who was receiving preventive detention—that is, sentences of upwards of seven years to begin with, and, later, of eight years; and sometimes more—was frequently not the serious offender, the enemy of society, but the compulsive thief; the type of man who, as soon as he came out of prison, could not resist stealing the first bicycle he saw.
One has seen many men of that type before the courts. One can look through the records to see the type of life they have led. So often the record reads, "Bicycle stealing, probation; bicycle stealing; more probation; bicycle stealing, borstal; bicycle stealing; a few months' imprisonment; bicycle stealing, a little longer in prison ". So it goes on and there is no rhyme or reason for the activities of these people. The same story applies to milk bottle stealing. Some people cannot see a bottle of milk without wanting to run off with it.
9.30 p.m.
Ten year's imprisonment or preventive detention for such people is so out of proportion to the gravity of the crime that it has brought the whole system of pre-

ventive detention, as it has been applied by the courts, into discredit. Rightly, in my view, public opinion has been shocked at some of these wretched old lags spending far more of their lives in prison than out of it. Time after time this type of criminal has been sent down for eight years or more for stealing yet another bottle of milk from a doorstep. Unless the saving provision—which is what the words
the gravity of the offence
represent—is in the Clause, this state of affairs will continue.
The Amendment would refer the court to the gravity of the crime and, unless it is accepted, precisely the same cycle of events as happened in the past will occur in relation to the new powers which the Bill is giving to courts for dealing with persistent offenders. If the Amendment is not accepted these new powers will be brought into discredit, just as the preventive detention system is falling into desuetude and out of favour with the public because it is not being used to protect the public against the people from whom they should be protected. Unless we have this saving provision the courts will continue to throw up their hands, as it were, when someone who has again stolen a bottle of milk appears before them, and wonder what to do with him. For these reasons I plead with the Government to reconsider their attitude and allow the saving words
the gravity of the offence
to be inserted.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): I thoroughly agree with everything stated by the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) and I have every sympathy with what they wish to do. I appreciate that they want the Amendment to have a restrictive effect on the imposition of extended sentences and to ensure that even where the offender is a confirmed recidivist, the court does not pass an extended sentence out of all proportion to the current offence.
One of the criticisms of the earlier operation of preventive detention was that the sentence was often imposed for very trivial offences, such as those mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull. The Government hope that the


extended sentence powers will not be used in a similar way. As the hon. Member for Runcorn explained, the Amendment moved in Committee was designed to insert the words
the nature of the offence".
The wording now suggested is
the gravity of the offence".
I agree that the latest phrase is better than the earlier one and I assure the House that we have tried hard, between Committee and now, to find a form of words which would do precisely what the hon. Member for Runcorn wishes to achieve by the Amendment. However, we still feel that, by adding words about the nature of the offence, we may be adding to the factors which may justify, rather than inhibit, an extended sentence being passed and that there might be the risk of the words leading to more, rather than less, extended sentences being given.
As I explained, we have tried to find a form of words which would be satisfactory and I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that we, with our advisers, are still trying to find a form of words to cover this point. I promise that if we can find such words they will be inserted in the Bill at a later stage. Meanwhile, we fear that to insert the words proposed in the Amendment might mislead people into thinking that more extended sentences were desired. However, I assure the House that we are at one with hon. Gentlemen opposite in wishing to adopt the object which they have in mind.

Dame Irene Ward: I am sure that we very much appreciate what the right hon. Lady has said, but it strikes me—and I am a magistrate—as being most extraordinary that if she agrees with what has been put forward by my hon. Friend it should not have been possible between the Committee and Report stages for the Home Office, with all the advice on which it can draw, to find words that would put into the Bill a provision that everyone wants. If that is the case, I am filled with alarm.
When one thinks of some of the tremendous things that have been decided by the Government with regard to words or actions, or whatever it may be, it seems extraordinary that it has not been possible for the Department to find suitable words. I hope that the Minister of State will not only say that the Home Office

will do its best, but will give a firm assurance that in another place the Government spokesman will see that words are inserted in the Bill which will have the desired effect.

Mr. Carlisle: I can only echo what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) in expressing surprise that, in view of what the Minister of State has said, the Home Office has not been able to find alternative words. The right hon. Lady may think that I am being churlish if I say that I found her reply somewhat disappointing. This is the second time one has been told that the Department agrees with the proposal, but that the words are not suitable. I find it difficult to think of words other than
the gravity of the offence",
which would be more suitable to meet the point we all seek to make.
With respect, those in the Home Office who suggest that the use of the words in the Amendment would allow courts to give extended sentences in more cases than in fewer are wholly ignoring the fact that after the words "gravity of the offence" would be the word "and" rather than "or". I always understood that "or" was disjunctive and that if one was obliged to consider the previous conduct, the gravity or the likelihood of repetition, on any of those three bases one would be entitled to pass an extended sentence, which is how the right hon. Lady argued against the Amendment.
If the word "and" appeared, I understood that, in the normal use of English, one had to consider previous conduct, the gravity of the offence and the likelihood of committing further offences—in other words, one had to consider all three, which is the point that I know the right hon. Lady and all of us want to establish.
I can only implore the Minister of State to see that something will be done grammatically before the Bill is debated in another place to put in the provision that all those who have spoken on this debate would like to see inserted.

Miss Bacon: I consider this to be a very important matter. Even before I was at the Home Office I had made many speeches about the practice of giving very lengthy P.D. sentences to those who have committed only very minor offences. I quite sincerely want to put the Clause


right. In fairness, I would say to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) who has not been present for a great many of these debates, that the advisers in our Department have done a very good job in meeting many of the points raised by hon. Members opposite who were on the Committee. If, in this one instance, they have not been able to get a form of words, it is not for want of trying. But I assure the House that we will go on trying to find the answer before the next stage of the Bill.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO PERSISTENT OFFENDERS.)

Amendment made: No. 72, in page 17, line 35, leave out from 'section' to 'of' in line 36 and insert:
'41 or section (Release on licence, of persons sentenced to imprisonment for life, etc.)'.— [Miss Bacon.]

Dr. Winstanley: I beg to move Amendment No. 74, in page 17, line 45, at the end to insert:
Provided nevertheless that, unless otherwise recommended by the Prison Licensing Board, the Secretary of State shall release on licence or without conditions any such person when he has served two-thirds of his sentence.
I do not need to detain the House for long on this Amendment. It is limited both in scope and in time. It is limited in scope since it applies to those who were previously serving sentences of preventive detention and limited in time, because for only a relatively short time will any of these persons exist. The Bill provides that anyone serving a sentence of preventive detention shall be treated for the purposes of release as if he was serving an equivalent sentence of imprisonment.
I am not altogether happy about this. Preventive detention is described in the Home Office publication, Prisons and Borstals, as follows:
it is of the essence of the system that the offender is not being punished for the last offence on which he was convicted, but is confined for the protection of society, and for a period which will in all probability far exceed any period for which he would have been imprisoned as a punishment.

Now that preventive detention is to disappear a prison sentence of equivalent length needs to be reviewed.
My attention has been drawn to a statement by Lord Stonham in a letter when he was in opposition, before he took office. He said:
Once preventive detention is abolished 1 shall do everything in my power to see that men serving these sentences will have them reviewed.
It may be that they will be reviewed. The Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, in a report on preventive detention, recommends
that as an interim measure all detainees in custody should be released on licence after serving two-thirds of their sentence.
This Amendment is designed to ensure that this happens. I have had a brief discussion with the right hon. Lady and it is her view that this situation is provided for, but I have been advised that it is not provided for in all circumstances. As the Bill is not entirely satisfactory in this way, the matter needs looking into further. I would not go so far as to push the Amendment if it turns out that her advice confirms her view, but I shall at least wait to hear what she says.
The Amendment provides that
unless otherwise recommended by the Prison Licensing Board, the Secretary of State shall release on licence or without conditions any such person when he has served two-thirds of his sentence.

Miss Bacon: The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) referred to preventive detention prisoners and corrective trainees having their sentences reviewed, although his Amendment does not in fact ask for this. It asks that they shall be released on licence or without conditions after they have served two-thirds of their sentences.

Dr. Winstanley: "Unless".

Miss Bacon: Unless otherwise recommended by the Prison Licensing Board.
I take it that the hon. Member wants to ensure that a preventive detention or corrective training prisoner in prison when Clause 24 comes into force will not have his position worsened by subsection (6) of the Clause. I assure him that this is so under the Bill as it stands. At present, both preventive detention and


corrective training prisoners are in law liable to be kept in prison for the term of their sentence, but they may be, and in practice are, released on licence after two-thirds of their sentence.
9.45 p.m.
Under subsection (6) a corrective training prisoner will be converted into an ordinary prisoner and will, in law, still be liable to be kept in prison for the term of his sentence, but may be, and in practice will be, granted up to one-third remission so that he is released outright on his two-thirds date, subject to any loss of remission for misconduct in prison.
The preventive detention prisoner will be converted to an extended sentence prisoner—that is, he will be an ordinary prisoner but, instead of being granted release on his two-thirds date, he may be, and in practice will be, released on licence under Clause 41(2), to which the Prison Licensing Board provisions do not apply.
One small matter about the Amendment is that it would provide for the automatic release of these two classes of prisoners after they had served two-thirds of their sentence but there would be no power to order loss of remission for misconduct, which applies to ordinary prisoners.

'unless—



(a) the act or any of the acts constituting that offence consisted of an assault on or threat of violence to another person, or of having or possessing a firearm, an imitation firearm, an explosive or an offensive weapon or of indecent conduct with or towards a person under the age of sixteen years;


5
(b) that offence is one in respect of which a probation order or order for conditional discharge was originally made or the offender was subject to such an order at the time of committing that offence;


10
(c) on the occasion on which sentence is passed for that offence, the court passes or proposes to pass a sentence of immediate imprisonment on the offender for 10 another offence which the court is not required to suspend;



(d) the offender is serving, or has since the commission of the offence served, a sentence of imprisonment or borstal training previously passed for another offence; or


15
(e) the offender had at any time before the commission of the offence been 15 sentenced to, or served any part of a sentence of, imprisonment or borstal training previously passed for another offence or been subject to a suspended sentence.


20
(4) The Secretary of State may by order provide that paragraph (e) of the last foregoing subsection shall have effect in any case prescribed by the order as if the reference to any time were a reference to any time during a period so prescribed (being a period 20 of not less than three years); and an order under this subsection may make different provision for different cases.

and the three Opposition Amendments thereto: in line 14, leave out 'at any time' and insert 'within a period of five years'.

Leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert:

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the position under the Bill will be the one which he desires.

Dr. Winstanley: I am sure that the right hon. Lady will prove to be right. I am also sure that she will realise that I am not entirely able to verify this at such short notice. I will assume that, as she is in sympathy with the intentions of the Amendment, if it should prove at a subsequent stage that there are any defects in this remedy they will be rectified later. I am sure that I am right in this understanding. If I am right, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25.—(SUSPENDED SENTENCES OF IMPISONMENT.)

Miss Bacon: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 18, line 36, to leave out:
'subject to the next following subsection'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we discuss Amendment No. 32, in page 18, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 20 on page 19 and insert:

'convicted of an offence punishable by any Court with a sentence of more than three months imprisonment'.

In line 17, leave out subsection (4).

And Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35.

Miss Bacon: These Amendments are designed to meet two criticisms of the mandatory suspended sentence provisions which were made in Committee. First, there was criticism in Committee of subsection (3,b), under which the Home Secretary is empowered to extend the mandatory provisions. It was suggested by hon. Members opposite that this power was too wide and that the Home Secretary ought not to be given a blank cheque. The right hon. and learned Members for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) asked that the power should be limited in the Bill.
Secondly, there was criticism of the fact that the mandatory provisions would apply to a man who had received any number of suspended sentences, providing that he did not commit his offences while actually subject to a suspended sentence.
Amendments Nos. 32 to 35 are consequential.
The effect of the main Amendment is to make two changes of substance. First, an offender will be outside the initial operation of the mandatory provisions if he has been given a suspended sentence at any time before the current offence. Under the Bill as it stands, the offender would be within the mandatory provisions if he had previously been given a suspended sentence but was no longer subject to it at the time of the new offence.
Secondly, the Home Secretary's power to extend the mandatory provisions is restricted. Under the new subsection (4), the Home Secretary will be able to extend the mandatory provisions only to cover offenders who had not been in prison or borstal or subject to a suspended sentence within a specified number of years.
It will be seen that these Amendments meet the main criticisms which were made in Committee.

Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Lady says that the Government Amendments meet two of the criticisms which were raised in Committee, and no one will deny that. Obviously, the Home Office has made a concession as regards the power of the Home Secretary to extend these provisions and it has met the point as regards a person previously given a suspended sentence. But, with respect, the right hon. Lady has overlooked the fundamental objection which was raised in Committee.
The fundamental objection is that what the Government propose is an unnecessary interference with the discretion of magistrates in passing sentences for particular crimes. I understand that I cannot ask formally to move our Amendment to Amendment No. 32 but I shall speak to it. This is the Amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to make paragraph (e) read:
unless—…
(e) the offender had at any time before the commission of the offence been convicted of an offence punishable by any court with a sentence of more than three months' imprisonment".
The House will understand the purpose of this Amendment. As it stands at present, the Government's proposals would prevent a court, except in certain specific circumstances, from ever sending someone to prison for less than six months if he had not previously been to prison. The purpose of our Amendment is to limit that not to those who have not previously been to prison but to those who have not previously been convicted. We accept that the Government are right to lay down powers which would prevent a court sending a first offender to prison when the sentence is less than six months, but the court should have full discretion, when people appear before it who have previously been before the courts, although not actually sent to prison, to pass the sentence which it believes right in view of the offence with which the person is charged.
There are people who appear before the magistrates on several occasions. Having been put on probation, having been given a conditional discharge, or having been fined, they come before the court again. In its wisdom, the court, be it the assize court, quarter sessions or the magistrates' court, may decide that the time has come when, to put it bluntly, such a person must be punished for what he has done, to teach him the lesson that he must not commit crimes in this way. In the court's view, the only answer now is to send him to prison, yet, under the Bill as drafted, apart from the Amendment dealing with suspended sentence, the court still cannot send him to prison.
The vast majority of offences are tried in the magistrates' courts, and now, under the provisions of the Bill, a magistrates' court, except in certain circumstances, will never be able to send anyone to prison who has not been committed to prison before.
I supported the whole idea of suspended sentences in Committee, and I reiterate that support tonight. I welcome these proposals, and appreciate all the objections to short-term sentences of imprisonment. Like the right hon. Lady, I believe that far too many are imposed. I believe that they have little reformative value, that they disrupt the individual's life by removing him temporarily from society, and that they lead to the present overcrowding of prisons. Of the 44,000 receptions into prison each year—I think that that was the figure given by the Home Secretary—22,000 are for periods of less than six months.
But the real objection to short sentences, perhaps, does not concern the person who goes to prison for the first time but the repeated short sentence given to the recidivist, which is of little value and clogs up our prisons. We are right to discourage courts from sending people to prison for short sentences, and from sending to prison at all people who have not been there before; undoubtedly the main deterrent to prison is the fear of the unknown, and by sending a person to prison one removes that fear.
One must ask whether it is right so to tie the hands of the courts that they can never impose a short term of imprisonment on a person who has not previously been to prison. I believe that we are right in curtailing in that way the courts' powers concerning first offenders. I think that I am right in saying that over 80 per cent. of them never appear before courts again. One knows that they will not appear whatever is done to them, and if that is so it is better to deal with them in a way which does not mean removing their liberty, with all the disruptive effects that that has, unless, of course, the offence is of such gravity that it clearly demands a substantial sentence.
One must also remember that a large proportion of people who go to prison for the first time never return there. The right hon. Lady has the figures, but I am

sure that the proportion is well over 50 per cent. and it is probably nearer 80 per cent. I believe that that is so whether those people go to prison for a short or long period.
I am happy to say that I have no firsthand knowledge of this, but I have heard it said that if one has not previously been in prison it is the first three months that are the worst. Therefore, the effect of a short sentence of imprisonment on someone who has not previously been to prison is likely to be similar to that of a longer term in keeping him away from crime in the future.
It seems to me that if the stage has come when a person should be sent to prison there is no real harm in sending him for a short term. I believe that one of the effects of the Clause as it stands, and even with the Amendment moved by the right hon. Lady, is that it will lead to far more people being committed to quarter sessions for sentence. Magistrates will say that they think that a defendant should go to prison and that three months would be enough, but they are not allowed to impose such a sentence. They will send him to quarter sessions, where it will be left to the recorder to decide whether he will give the defendant nine months instead.
If I am right in thinking that most people who go to prison do not go back, and if it is the punishment that deters them, there is no point in putting into statutory provisions a Clause that requires that the sentence should be of nine months rather than three, if three months is adequate to achieve the purpose one wants. I believe very strongly that the mandatory provisions of the Clause should be limited to first offenders.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Carlisle: I was saying that the mandatory powers of the Clause should be limited to preventing the courts from sentencing first offenders to prison for


less than six months, rather than people who have been to prison before.
The Home Office cannot deny that as it stands the Clause is wholly opposed by the Magistrates' Association and by the chairmen of quarter sessions. I believe that it is opposed by the justices' clerks and a very strong and excellent memorandum was written against it by the Manchester City Magistrate supported by the Liverpool City Magistrate. They all feel that this is an unnecessary interference with their right to decide to sentence in a particular case. I have always believed that the duty and the rights of Parliament in this matter are to lay down the maximum and minimum sentences, but that it is for the courts to decide the sentence within those two boundaries.
The right hon. Lady cannot say that the Home Office is wholly opposed to short-term sentences, because the very exceptions which she has laid down permit them in certain cases. What she has overlooked is that it is nowhere as near as effective to say that an assault case can be sent to prison while a larceny case cannot be, because that is to ignore all the various degrees and differences and inferences of every case. This is where the court and not the Home Office ought to judge, and I very much hope that our Amendment will have the support of the House and that we shall divide on it if it does not, because it is a matter of importance.

Sir D. Renton: I support everything my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has said. The right hon. Lady claimed rather too much when she said that the Government Amendments met most of the points which we had made in Committee. In Committee, there was a division of opinion on both sides as to whether suspended sentences were a good thing. We all agreed that short sentences were not a good thing, and the difference between us was on the extent to which we should fetter the magistrates' discretion as regards suspended sentences and those cases in which short sentences should be allowed.
Although I support the Opposition Amendment to the Amendment—indeed, I have put my name to it—I want especially to refer to my Amendment to leave

out subsection (4). There is a slight technical difficulty and I hope that I shall be able to clarify the position sufficiently to show that I have good and, I hope, helpful intentions in putting forward this Amendment. If the Opposition Amendment is carried, subsection (4) will become completely unnecessary, which is my main reason for my Amendment. But even if the Opposition Amendment were not accepted or carried, subsection (4) would have to be left out as a consequential Amendment to my Amendment to line 14, which I now hope to explain.
In Government Amendment No. 32 it will be seen that the Home Secretary is taking power to prescribe the period of years as
being a period of not less than three years
which will be the time within which an offence has been committed for which
the offender had…been sentenced to, or served any part of a sentence of, imprisonment or borstal training previously passed for another offence…
We are dealing not only with the powers of the court to sentence people, but also with the liberty of the subject. Matters dealing with the liberty of the subject should be written specifically into an Act of Parliament, not left to be inserted at some later stage by Ministerial Order, although even that may be subject to Parliamentary control. I have, therefore, suggested that we should decide this matter in a reasonable manner here and now, by leaving out in line 14 of Amendment No. 32, the words "at any time", and to make up our minds about this matter and say that "at any time" should mean within a period of five years.
If we do this, subsection (4) would become unnecessary. I realise that I am in the slight technical difficulty that my first Amendment would be quite unnecessary if the principle Opposition Amendment is accepted, because mine would be in conflict with it. I accept that. What I am really proposing is an alternative. The argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn, is very strong, and I hope that it will commend itself to the right hon. Lady.

Miss Bacon: I will deal, first, with the Amendment referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). As he


said, it is an alternative to the main Opposition Amendment, and it is in conflict, in some respects, with it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment would have two effects. The mandatory provision would apply immediately the Clause came into force to offenders who had been out of prison, and who had not been subject to a suspended sentence for five years. Secondly, there would be no power to reduce the five-year period to three years. The main effect of these Amendments would be to drastically extend the immediate scope of the mandatory provisions.
While the Government want the mandatory provisions to have a significant effect, they have thought it right to proceed in stages and to observe their operation in the cases in subsection (3) as it stands before extending them. It seems preferable to err, if at all, on the side of caution, to see how the mandatory provisions operate in practice before extending them. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, he would be widening the scope of the mandatory provisions, rather than limiting them, as is the case with the main Opposition Amendment.
As to the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) there is quite a division of opinion between the Amendment which I have moved and that Amendment. The whole purpose of Clause 25 is to reduce the number of short prison sentences. They clog the prison system and do little good to the offender. What possible good can it do to a man, particularly for the offences which have been listed, to give him a short sentence of about three months?
The hon. Member for Runcorn said that three months might be enough in some cases and that many people went into prison for the first time but never again. That may be so. But I wonder —it is Bible to measure this precisely—how many people go into prison for the first time for short sentences, get used to prison life, meet people who have a bad effect on them and who possibly, because they have been in prison for a short time, go back subsequently.
The effect of the Amendment would be to make the mandatory suspended sen-

tence provisions apply to offenders who had not previously been convicted of an offence punishable with more than three months' imprisonment rather than, according to the Clause as drafted, the offender who had not previously been sentenced to imprisonment or borstal training. The Amendment would significantly reduce the impact which the Clause is designed to make on the problem of short sentences. In 1964, 3,232 male first offenders were received into prison with sentences of six months or less. About 2,640 would have had to have their sentences suspended under Clause 25, under the mandatory provisions.
I believe that a short sentence blunts the deterrent impact of imprisonment by accustoming the offender to prison. An offender who has not been to prison or borstal is in precisely this category and may well be at the crossroads of his criminal career. Either he stops now or he is likely to become a recidivist. If at this stage a short sentence is given, any deterrent effect which the idea of prison might have on him is frittered away in a single sentence.
I appreciate and understand the point about a magistrates' court not being able to give a sentence of more than six months' imprisonment. But in 1964, of the 5,900 offenders who had short sentences which would have had to be suspended under Clause 25(3), at least 4,300 could have been given more than six months for the offence for which they were convicted.
If the offence were serious enough to warrant imprisonment, in almost all cases it would be serious enough to send on to a higher court for a longer sentence than six months. I therefore believe that if we accept the Amendment it will strike at the very heart of the Clause. The only way significantly to cut down the number of short prison sentences is to adopt the mandatory provisions proposed in the Amendment which I moved.
I hope that the Opposition's Amendment will be resisted. If it is not, we shall have many short prison sentences, which we are trying to get rid of by Clause 25.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 32, in page 18, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 20 on page 19 and insert:
'unless—

(a) the act or any of the acts constituting that offence consisted of an assault on or threat of violence to another person, or of having or possessing a firearm, an imitation firearm, an explosive, or an offensive weapon or of indecent conduct with or towards a person under the age of sixteen years;
(b) that offence is one in respect of which a probation order or order for conditional discharge was originally made or the offender was subject to such an order at the time of committing that offence;
(c) on the occasion on which sentence is passed for that offence, the court passes or proposes to pass a sentence of immediate imprisonment on the offender for another offence which the court is not required to suspend;
(d) the offender is serving, or has since the commission of the offence served, a

sentence of imprisonment or borstal training previously passed for another offence; or
(e) the offender had at any time before the commission of the offence been sentenced to, or served any Dart of a sentence of, imprisonment or borstal training previously passed for another offence or been subject to a suspended sentence.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order provide that paragraph (e) of the last foregoing subsection shall have effect in any case prescribed by the order as if the reference to any time were a reference to any time during a period so prescribed (being a period of not less than three years); and an order under this subsection may make different provision for different cases.'—[Miss Bacon.]

No. 33, in page 19, line 25, leave out from 'order' to 'this' and insert:
'made by the Secretary of State under'.

No. 34, in line 26, leave out 'thereunder' and insert 'so made'.

No. 35, in line 27, leave out from 'be' to 'unless' in line 28 and insert 'so made'.—[Miss Bacon.]

Clause 30.—(RESTRICTION ON MAGISTRATES' COURTS' POWER TO IMPOSE IMPRISONMENT FOR DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF FINES, ETC.)

Mr. Clegg: I beg to move Amendment No. 86, in page 23, line 24, to leave out Clause 30.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we discussed Amendment No. 87, in page 26, to leave out line 9.

Mr. Clegg: The effect of Clause 30 is to delay the time at which a man or woman can be sent to prison for nonpayment of a fine. I think that that is putting the matter very simply. However, although it is simple, the Clause itself is complex and throws great burdens on the magistrates' courts which will have to administer its provisions.
It has been a source of worry not only to right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House but to those who will have to work it. The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that there has been considerable criticism of the Clause by the Justices Clerks' Society, the Magistrates' Association and the London Criminal Court Solicitors' Association, all bodies which have a tremendous experience in this sphere of activity. They feel either that the provisions will he unworkable, or that, if they are to be workable, it will be only at the expense of the employment of new staff. That, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows is already a considerable problem for magistrates' courts, not only in the Metropolis but throughout the country.
We have to consider, too, the effect of the Clause against a background of the imposition of 1,200,000 fines a year, but we must also take into account that, if the Home Secretary's policy as expressed in the Bill is carried through, the number of fines will increase considerably, because the whole policy of the Bill, as shown by the increase in the amounts of fines, is the substitution of fines, amongst other things, for imprisonment. As a result, in future the number of fines per year will increase considerably.
Part of the answer to why the Home Secretary is delaying the sending of people to prison for non-payment of fines is to empty the prisons. He wants to get out of prison many of the people who are in now for not paying fines. But it was interesting in Committee to look into the number of people who went to prison each year for non-payment of fines. We were told that the figure was about 10,000. However, 40 per cent. of that number bought themselves out of prison, which means that 4,000 people went to prison who could well afford to pay their fines.
I believe that that illustrates the present difficulty of getting people to pay fines. If people who can pay have to go to prison before they produce the money, it shows how many of them, even now, when the powers of the magistrates are greater, hold the courts in contempt. As I said in Committee, they put the payment of fines extremely low on their budgets.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Can my hon. Friend explain why it proves that people can afford to pay, as opposed to somebody else deciding to pay the fine for them?

Mr. Clegg: I think that I can explain that.
Many people will go to the uttermost ends before they will pay a fine. They will go to the last ditch, and sometimes into it. I know from experience that many men, and women, too, could avoid going to prison by paying their fines, but they will not do so, and the ultimate sanction has to be used before they will "cough up". My hon. Friend is right in saying that sometimes a relative will pay the fine, but it shows that in most cases there is sufficient money in the family to prevent the man from going to prison by paying the fine.
The procedure set up by the Bill is suspect because it has been brought in by the Home Secretary before the Payne Committee considering the question of the recovery of civil debts has reported, and yet part of the new machinery which the right hon. Gentleman says will make people pay their fines more easily depends for its effectiveness on the Committee's report. For example, power is


to be given to courts to register a civil judgment either in the county court or in the high court, but until the Committee reports we cannot judge how effective this power will be.
When we discussed this matter in Committee, the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) told us that he had a lot of experience in getting people to pay money which they owed. He said that it was necessary to chase them. The first time they were tackled, one went through the procedure of issuing the usual warning letter. This was followed by another warning letter, proceedings were then started, and eventually one got judgment against the individual concerned, but the hon. Gentleman told us that the effect of this was that the next time the man owed money he knew that he had a long time in which to pay because the whole procedure would have to be gone through again. This is what will happen under the Clause, because it will be mandatory for magistrates to consider using every other procedure before sending a man to prison for the non-payment of a fine.
The Bill will be more effective if the Clause is left out, because the power that is being given to attach wages will give a magistrate the discretion to use that power and he will do so. I think that the Clause is in the Bill because the Home Secretary mistrusts justices of the peace, and, indeed, the judiciary generally. He thinks that in some way they will frustrate his liberal intentions, and the intentions of Parliament. I believe that the Home Secretary is mistaken in bringing in this provision.
I have some experience of the courts. I have often taken people to listen to court proceedings. Their abiding impression of the courts is not that the sentences have been unduly severe, or that the judge has been unduly severe, but rather that the courts have dealt with people with the utmost clemency. I have heard this said on many occasions, both of assize courts, and of magistrates' courts.
Most magistrates' courts are very careful before they send someone to prison for the non-payment of a fine. They go into the background of the case. I am

certain that they would not send a man to prison if he was unable to pay his fine because he was suffering from ill-health, or because his circumstances had changed since the fine was imposed. In most cases, the clerk of the court says to someone who is brought before the court to answer questions about his means, "Why did you not come to my office and tell me your circumstances, and why you could not pay? Had you done so you might have been saved the trouble fo being brought here now". Courts are much more realistic than the Clause gives them credit for being.
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson.) that the effect of the Clause will be to empty the prisons for a time, because in the early stages this procedure will delay the sending of men to prison for the non-payment of fines. But, in the long run, and especially because of the new policy of imposing fines, the position will be as bad, if not worse, than it is today. In other words, this is merely a postponement. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the sausage machine will start grinding again once the initial period has been gone through.

Dame Irene Ward: I am glad of this opportunity to support the Amendment. When the right hon. Lady the Minister of State replied to the last Amendment she said that I had not been associated with the Bill very often. That is true, mainly because I did not have the privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee. However, as I pointed out when I spoke last, I have been a magistrate on the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Bench for very many years; and that is why I am glad to speak on this occasion.
While listening to the debate today I have been worried at the almost complete absence of recognition by the Government of the part that magistrates play in administering the courts of summary jurisdiction. No attention appears to have been given by the Government to the views which have been sent, in no uncertain terms, to the Home Office on the issues covered by the Clause. While attention may have been paid in Committee to the views of the courts of summary jurisdiction, I speak tonight because I want to make sure that the


views of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Bench are on the record.
When it became apparent that the proposals contained in the Clause would be introduced into the Bill, there was a meeting of the Newcastle Bench. This is a large bench, with four courts every day. Wide experience is possessed by the magistrates there and they discussed the Clause in great detail. It was their unanimous opinion—there was no opposition and no politics were involved—that the Clause should be deleted.
I became suspicious about the amount of attention that was being paid by Home Office Ministers to the views of magistrates, many of whom, in my view, have a great deal more experience than many of the new Ministers at the Home Office and who feel that they have every right to express their views on this subject. And when I realised some time ago that the Home Office intended to proceed with the inclusion of a Clause of this kind, I asked the appropriate Minister at Question Time whether many recommendations had been received in the same terms as those forwarded by the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Bench. The answer was, of course, "Yes".
None of this has been referred to during the debate, although the Minister may mention it when he replies to the Amendment. Suffice to say that strong recommendations have been made and I imagine that a great many of them were as unanimous as the recommendations put forward by Newcastle.
Justices' clerks, magistrates' associations and the whole section of the community concerned with administering the courts of summary jurisdiction have, so far as I am aware, all been opposed to the Clause as it stands. The Home Office should, therefore, pay attention to the views of magistrates, who are responsible people doing an extremely good job.
As a magistrate, I have always been in favour of imposing the highest amount of fine in appropriate cases. However, one of the problems of the courts of summary jurisdiction is that they are short of staff, and the collection of fines presents a difficult administrative problem for them.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mean to accept this proposal, I hope that he will tell us in straight terms that appropriate staff will be provided for the courts so as to relieve the difficulties which clerks to the justices now face. I do not mind telling him that if steps had been taken some time ago to deal with the problem, magistrates might have had greater sympathy with the proposals in the Bill. The present position is quite intolerable, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will bear that in mind.
If this Clause is retained, we will add to the burden of the vast numbers of deserted and separated wives who have maintenance orders. Here, the legal position needs adjustment and amendment. Day after day in the House I listen to statements—and I do not at all disagree with them—about action being taken to deal with television licence and motor vehicle licence dodgers. We are told, quite rightly, that in the interests of the national economy stricter steps are being taken to deal with the people who seek to escape paying.
I welcome that; but I find it the more surprising that in the case of women who are in great difficulty over the receipt of the money due to them under maintenance orders of various kinds the Government have gone in just the opposite direction. I do not need to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that hon. Members are continually receiving representations from constituents about husbands who disappear. The men change their jobs, nobody is able to trace them, and the maintenance that the magistrates have ordered them to pay just goes by default.
The Ministry of Social Security cannot give addresses, and those who fail to pay what has been imposed on them can get away with it. The benches have no means of following up the cases they have dealt with and putting the law into operation. This means a great blow to many women, who have no means of protecting themselves from defaulting spouses.
The magistrates have been given the responsibility of forming their own genuine views of cases coming before them, and I think that they do extremely well. That being so, I find it quite indefensible that the Government should


have taken this decision before we have had the report of the Payne Committee. To do that is intolerable to the House of Commons and to the magistrates who service the courts of summary jurisdiction. In case the hon. and learned Gentleman refuses to delete the Clause, I should be glad to know when he expects the Committee to report.
I should also like to know—but I do not suppose I shall be told, because no Minister ever wants to give information about what his colleagues think—whether the Lord Chancellor, who has very humane views on the treatment of women, was consulted before this Clause was put into the Bill knowing, as he does, that a Committee is at present considering all these matters of civil debts.
I know what the attitude of the Government would be on certain other matters on which pressure might be brought to bear from both sides when a committee is due to report. We have heard about local government commissions, reviews, Royal Commissions. We can never get a decision on anything, because everything has to be referred to a Royal Commission, a Select Committee, or a special committee. Nobody can take a decision when cases of grave hardship are involved, because it must be referred to a committee.
Now, on this Clause, it suits the Home Secretary to act differently. I am not criticising him as a Home Secretary. I know that everybody thinks that he is a very good Home Secretary. I know that he wants to be regarded as the best and greatest Home Secretary who has ever held that office. That is his objective. I do not think that he is like that. If he had been like that, he would never have agreed to the insertion of the Clause before having received this very important report. The views which are being advanced to the Home Secretary have received little attention. They have been brushed aside.
The one consideration that the Home Secretary has in mind is to empty the prisons. Nobody disagrees with his objective, but a person should not set that as his one and only priority and cause tremendous hardship to many unfortunate people who have gone before the courts to get their protection and to get

the protection of justice. The inclusion of this Clause in the Bill removes the protection of justice that magistrates' courts try to offer to those who come before them for protection against people who, on the civil side, have been treating them badly.
Being a Member of Parliament, I am not often able nowadays to sit on my own magistrates' bench. When we have a case before us we go into very great detail to discover the means of the person who is to be fined. Within the maximum and minimum terms that are prescribed for us, we so fix the fine. The Home Secretary is now preventing us from going into these details, which are so relevant to the fixing of a fine.
I resent this interference. On the whole, benches are very humane. They are well-informed. All Lord Chancellors prefer the benches to be staffed by magistrates with wide experience in every section of life. A bench of magistrates is not composed of people from only one section of the community, having only one branch of knowledge. Benches are composed of people with very wide experience of life. Magistrates with many years of service know much more about life than Home Office Ministers. The Home Office thinks that it has all the answers. It has not. It is easy to make decisions in Whitehall having done little work in the field. Work in the field in the administration of justice is much more important than being a Home Office Minister.
I do not know whether any of the other Members from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, all of whom have received letters from the clerk to the justices pointing out what the bench has decided, intend to speak. I do not know whether any of them intend to support their own bench, which represents the city for which they sit, but all I can say is that I hope we shall hear a great deal more about what representations have been made.
Home Secretaries go to magistrates' associations, who are always supposed to be brought into consultation. But I do not think that the Government believe in consultation with the trade unions. Unless there is some recognition of the views of the trade unions—

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady now is just out of order.

Dame Irene Ward: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I was only going on to say that if one can accept knowledge put forward by one section of society, I think it only right to expect that the Home Office should recognise advice tendered by the Magistrates' Association as a whole, from the clerk to the justices, and the whole paraphernalia of people who are experienced in this field, who have made their recommendations and who do not agree with Clause 30 of the Bill.
I therefore ask the Minister to do something about it and to let us know whether he really knows anything about courts of summary jurisdiction.

Mr. Buck: In view of the admirable way in which the Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), and the support it has received at some length from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), in an admirable and interesting speech, I do not think that much more need be said. But there are one or two points I would like to emphasise, and one or two questions I should like to put to the Minister.
The hon. and learned Gentleman may recall that yesterday, fairly early on in the Report stage, I sought to move an Amendment relating to the publication for the purposes of the Press of, as it were, daily calendars of the court list. I was conscious in moving that Amendment, that this would place a minor administrative burden on the staff of the magistrates' courts. Indeed this was pointed out to me by the Under-Secretary in no uncertain terms. What is proposed here, however, is to place an enormous additional burden on the magistrates' courts, both on the magistrates themselves and particularly on the staff of their courts.
This point has been made before, but I would reinforce it by asking the Under-Secretary to tell us tonight what steps he is proposing to increase and strengthen the staffs of magistrates' courts so that they should be able to cope with the additional burdens placed upon them.
When I ventured to bring the earlier Amendment before the House, I asked

the hon. and learned Gentleman if he would be prepared to give at a later stage figures concerning additional burdens placed on magistrates' courts staffs in recent years. Perhaps he will take this opportunity of doing that.
On the earlier Amendment, which, in my view, had great merit, we were told that the administrative burden was too much. Yet here, for no overwhelming reason which I can see, we have the magistrates' courts being burdened with a very cumbersome procedure.
I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what representations he has had causing him to bring in this particular Clause of the Bill? Where has the pressure come from for this change? None of us on this side have heard of any pressure for this. All the pressure of which we are aware has been for the retention of the present system which has worked moderately well, especially in the spheres mentioned by the hon. Lady such as maintenance orders and the like.
Where has the pressure come from? Who is in favour of it? Who has been pushing the Home Office? Where are these overwhelming considerations for bringing this forward, especially in view of the terms of reference of the Payne Committee? Someone must be putting pressure on the Home Office to bring forward such a cause as this when there is a Committee with very similar terms of reference dealing with the whole matter. I should like a full reply from the Under-Secretary of State about it.

Sir J. Hobson: The weight of professional opinion expressed against this proposal from all quarters of those most concerned with enforcement is very impressive. What do the Government think about these criticisms and what assurances do they intend to give of the way in which they will deal with the problems created by this Clause for large numbers of magistrates' courts and for other enforcement machinery.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) is a little innocent if he thinks that an explanation is needed as to where the pressure arises on the Home Office to introduce the Clause. It was entirely internal pressure from the Prison Department to try to keep as many


people out of prison as possible. This is obviously a desirable objective if it can be achieved without a breakdown in law and order, but my anxiety is that the result of bringing this elaborate administrative machinery into effect will be that millions of people will find that, having committed motoring offences and minor offences of every description and having been fined, in fact they need not pay. The administrative machinery will break down.
People will go to court and will be fined, but will walk out of the court with no enforceable order made against them. There will be a summons for inquiry into means, the court will consider whether it should be enforced through the county court, and only at the end of a very long road, which can be thoroughly obstructed by the persons from whom one is trying to get the money, will there be in some cases the risk of a man going to prison.
If all went to prison in the end, that would perhaps see that the law was respected, but if, as so often happens in these administrative problems, some people go to prison and some do not, it will bring the law into contempt and will create a sense of injustice and equality. That will be the case if some people find that, having been fined, they are imprisoned and others are not imprisoned and are still not made to pay the fine.
May I ask about the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, and the Payne Committee? There is a major administrative problem for the country in debt collection. It is not only a matter of fines and of the maintenance orders which my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) mentioned. Every hon. Member knows of innumerable cases in which married women are seeking to enforce orders against their husbands who fail to pay. In addition, there is the enforcement of county court orders. Very frequently, this debt collection involves the same man. He is fined, he is also being chased by a hire-purchase company and by his wife and perhaps he has other liabilities.
I have always thought that in every area there ought to be a single administrative enforcement machinery to collect all this cash, often from the same indi-

vidual. At present, each competes against the other and no one knows at any moment exactly how much is required from all the different sources. I should much have preferred the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department to have awaited the Payne Committee's report and to have considered whether some common machinery could be set up jointly for enforcing the money penalties of the criminal court and the payment of civil debt.
I wonder whether the Under-Secretary could give the House any indication when the Home Office, as at present advised, intends to bring the Clause into operation. All these Clauses have to be brought separately into operation by the Home Secretary. I hope that this Clause will not be brought into operation, and that the Home Secretary does not intend to bring it into operation, certainly until after the Payne Committee and the Lord Chancellor's Department have discussed it and it has been seen whether this can be carried out with other debt-collecting machinery.

Mr. Taverne: The Amendment was very eloquently moved by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) and very forcibly supported by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and other hon. Members opposite.
We recognise that the Magistrates' Association does not like the Clause. We place the greatest importance on what the Association says. We recognise that it is a very responsible body. But I am sure that hon. Members opposite would be the first to agree that one cannot allow any individual body to dictate one's thinking. These are matters that one takes into consideration, but they are not necessarily conclusive.
We recognise that the Clause will mean more work for the staff of magistrates' courts. One may have to consider special requests for increases in staff in certain cases. It will mean more work for the police. We recognise this.
But the question that has to be faced is: what is the purpose of the Measure? Hon. Members opposite have stated that it is solely concerned with emptying the gaols or keeping people out of gaol. I suppose it can be put that way. But I ask hon. Members to think for a moment what this involves. It is not just a


question of keeping the gaols empty. It is a question of people not being sent to gaol whom one would try to avoid sending to gaol. It means that one can avoid families being deprived of the breadwinner.
The hon. Lady spoke about the increased number of deserted wives that will result. What is the advantage to a wife if the husband is sent to prison when there might be ways of extracting the money without sending him to prison? How the Clause will increase the number of deserted wives I fail to see.
It is not only a question of the cost involved—the cost of someone in gaol and the cost of maintaining the family. It is not only a question of contamination of people who have not been to gaol before. It is also a question, which is particularly strong, of not sending people to gaol. Who are the people who would go to gaol if they defaulted on a fine? They are people on whom the court has decided not to impose a sentence of imprisonment. The courts have said, "The best method is not to send the man to gaol but to impose a fine." It is eminently the sort of case where one wants to keep the person out of gaol. Every time a person goes to gaol because the money has not been extracted from him, one is admitting defeat of the intentions of the court or of Parliament.
The hon. Member for North Fylde quoted figures. It is worth bearing them in mind. In 1964, the last year for which figures are available, there were more than 10,000 persons sentenced to imprisonment in default of payment of fines. Nearly 4,500 had no previous institutional sentences. They were the people one wanted to keep away from the contamination of a few weeks in gaol. Forty per cent. of them bought their way out. So 40 per cent. of the cases at least were ones in which the person would not have gone to gaol if there had been a suitable way of extracting the money.
I was asked why we could not wait for the Payne Committee. The line pursued when the Government take or do not take action is not always the same. Sometimes the criticism is made that the Government are postponing action because they must wait for committees to report. When they act and do not wait for a committee to report, they are

criticised for not waiting. The Payne Committee was concerned not with the extraction of fines, but with the enforcement of civil debts. It was not concerned with the enforcement of criminal debts.
11.0 p.m.
There is, of course, a link, and it would be quite wrong if we were now to try to legislate in a way contrary to what the Payne Committee was planning to do in its report. Mr. Justice Payne was kept informed when the Bill was being prepared. We were told by Mr. Justice Payne that there was nothing in the Bill which conflicted in any way with his Committee's thinking.
In some ways our proposals are linked with the Payne Committee, because the attachment of earnings will be done in a way which is linked to the present attachment of earnings for maintenance orders; and as reforms are brought about by the Payne Committee in the enforcement of maintenance orders, they will automatically apply to the enforcement bf fines.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Under-Secretary has told the House of what Mr. Justice Payne has said. He must forgive us for being a little suspicious after being told previously that the chairman of a bench of justices was reported as expressing the view of his fellow justices when it subsequently transpired that they did not think anything of the kind.

Mr. Taverne: I can only tell the hon. Member exactly what I said before. We consulted Mr. Justice Payne, who should know what his own Committee was doing, and he told us that nothing in our proposals conflicted with his Committee's thinking.
I was asked about the Lord Chancellor. Of course, the Lord Chancellor was aware of what was proposed and was being done in the Bill, and he accepted what was being done in the Bill. I was asked whether this meant a distrust of magistrates. Of course it does not. We recognise the valuable functions performed by magistrates.
What is happening is that the laws on which magistrates operate are being changed. The present method of enforcing fines was based on legislation which was introduced, I think, in 1935, at a time when there was a quite different approach to the idea of imprisonment.


It is now much more widely accepted that imprisonment should be avoided if that is possible. In 1935, when the present legislation was formulated, prison was much more readily accepted as an alternative to the enforcement of fines or as a way of enforcing fines.
The Clause insists that in many cases there must be a means inquiry. It is important to remember what a means inquiry is, because to some extent "means inquiry" is a misleading description. Essentially, a means inquiry is an inquest or inquiry into the reasons for default. It is eminently sensible that there should in every possible case be an inquiry into the reasons for default of payment.
Then we go on to say that there should be no committal until all possible steps have been taken for extracting the money

or it has been decided that there is no way of extracting the money and that to try to do so would be inappropriate. We do not remove the former protection. The ultimate sanction of imprisonment remains. An additional power to reduce is given.

I hope that the House will agree that the provisions of the Clause are valuable. Although the Clause will mean extra work, it will be worth while because it should mean that a number of people who are eminently the sort of cases who should be kept out of prison will no longer go to prison.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'reduce' in line 17 on page 25, stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 21.

Division No. 326.1]
AYES
[11.04 p.m.


Allen, Scholefield
Gregory, Arnold
O'Malley, Brian


Archer, Peter
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Orbach, Maurice


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamling, William
Orme, Stanley


Ashley, Jack
Harper, Joseph
Park, Trevor


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Haseldine, Norman
Pavitt, Laurence


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hazell, Bert
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Beaney, Alan
Hilton, W. S.
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hooley, Frank
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Horner, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Binns, John
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rees, Merlyn


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Howie, W.
Reynolds, G. W.


Brooks, Edwin
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roebuck, Roy


Carmichael, Nell
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rogors, George (Kensington, N.)


Coleman, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Concannon, J. D.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Leadbitter, Ted
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Loughlin, Charles
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Luard, Evan
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Dickens, James
McBride, Neil
Urwin, T. W.


Dobson, Ray
MacDermot, Niall
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Driberg, Tom
Macdonald, A. H.
Wallace, George


Dunnett, Jack
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwyneth (Exeter)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Wellbeloved, James


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ellis, John
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Whitlock, William


Faulds, Andrew
Marquand, David
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fernyhough, E.
Millan, Bruce
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Yates, Victor


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Molloy, William



Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Moyle, Roland
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Murray, Albert
Mr. Harold Walker and


Gourlay, Harry
Norwood, Christopher
Mr. Charles Grey.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Ogden, Eric





NOES


Biggs-Davison, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Body, Richard
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Braine, Bernard
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Smith, John


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Iremonger, T. L.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Carlisle, Mark
Knight, Mrs. Jill



Clegg, Walter
Maddan, Martin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Crowder, F. P.
More, Jasper
Dame Irene Ward and


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop.


Eyre, Reginald

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 25, line 17, leave out 'reduce the amount' and insert:
'remit the whole or any part'.

No. 37, in line 19, leave out 'reduces that amount' and insert:
'remits the whole or part of that sum'.

No. 38, in line 22, leave out 'by which that sum is reduced' and insert 'remitted'.

No. 39, in line 23, at end insert:
'or, as the case may be, shall remit the whole term'.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Clause 33.—(FINES IMPOSED AND RECOGNIZANCES FORFEITED AT ASSIZES AND QUARTER SESSIONS.)

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 26, line 42, at beginning insert:
'Subject to the provisions of subsection (8) of this section'.

No. 41, in page 27, line 1, leave out 'reduction'.

No. 42, in line 12, after 'forfeited', insert:
'after the commencement of this Act'.

No. 43, in line 46, at end insert:
(8) A magistrates' court shall not under section 30(10) of this Act or section 96 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, as applied by subsection (3) of this section, remit the whole or any part of a fine imposed, or a sum due under a recognizance forfeited by a court of assize or quarter sessions, without the consent of—

(a) a judge of the Central Criminal Court, where the fine was imposed or the recognizance forfeited by that court;
(b) a judge of the Crown Court at Liverpool or the Crown Court at Manchester, as the case may require, where the fine was imposed, or the recognizance forfeited by one of those courts;
(c) a judge of the High Court, where the fine was imposed or the recognizance forfeited by any court of assize (other than the Central Criminal Court or one of the said Crown Courts);
(d) the chairman or any deputy chairman, or the recorder or any deputy recorded, as the case may be, of a court of quarter sessions, where the fine was imposed or the recognizance forfeited by that court;

and the said section 30(10) shall have effect accordingly.
(9) A fine imposed or a recognizance forfeited by the criminal division of the Court of Appeal on appeal from a court of assize or quarter sessions or by the House of Lords on appeal from that division shall be treated for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection as

having been imposed or forfeited by that court of assize or quarter sessions.

No. 44, in page 28, line 8, leave out subsection (9) and insert:
(9) All rights granted by the Crown, by charter or otherwise, to fines imposed for sums due under recognizances forfeited after the commencement of this Act by the High Court or courts of assize or quarter sessions are hereby extinguished and any such fines or sums which apart from the foregoing provision would be paid to the holders of such rights shall be paid into and retained in the Exchequer.
(10) The Treasury shall out of moneys provided by Parliament pay by way of compensation to the holder of any such right who has received any payment as such a holder during the period of five years ending with 31st March 1967 an amount equal to three times the aggregate of the sums received by him in respect of fines imposed and recognizances forfeited in that period by the High Court or courts of assize or quarter sessions.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Clause 34.—(FINES IMPOSED BY CORONERS.)

Amendment made: No. 45, in page 28, line 13, leave out 'reduction'.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Clause 41.—(RELEASE ON L ICENCE.)

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 33, line 21, leave out 'he thinks fit' and insert:
'recommended to do so by the Prison Licensing Board'.

No. 47, in line 40, at end insert:
(3A) The Secretary of State shall consult the Board before including on release, or subsequently inserting, a condition in a licence under this section or varying or cancelling any such condition; and for the purposes of this subsection the Secretary of State shall be treated as having consulted the Board about a proposal to include, insert, vary or cancel a condition in any case if he has consulted the Board about the implementation of proposals of that description generally or in that class of case.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Clause 42.—(REVOCATION OF LICENCES AND CONVICTION OF PRISONERS ON LICENCE.)

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 34, line 18, leave out subsection (1) and insert:

(1) Where the Prison Licensing Board recommends the recall of any person who is subject to a licence under section 41 or section (Release of persons sentenced to imprisonment for life, etc.) of this Act, the Secretary of State may revoke that person's licence and recall him to prison.

(2) The Secretary of State may revoke the licence of any such person and recall him as aforesaid without consulting the Board, where it appears to him that it is expedient in the public interest to recall that person before such consultation is practicable.

(3) A person recalled to prison under the foregoing provisions of this section may make representations in writing with respect to his recall and shall on his return to prison be informed of the reasons for his recall and of his right to make such representations.

(4) The Secretary of State shall refer to the Board the case of a person recalled under subsection (1) of this section who makes representations under the last foregoing subsection and shall in any event so refer the case of a person returned to prison after being recalled under subsection (2) of this section.

(5) Where the Board recommends the immediate release on licence of a person whose case is referred to it under this section, the Secretary of State shall give effect to the recommendation, and where it is necessary for that purpose to release that person under subsection (1) of section (Release on licence of persons sentenced to imprisonment for life, etc.) of this Act, the Secretary of State shall do so without the consultation required by that subsection.

No. 49, in line 21, leave out 'any such licence' and insert:
'a licence under section 41 or section (Release on licence of persons sentenced to imprisonment for life, etc.) of this Act,'.

No. 50, in line 37, leave out from 'detained' to 'of' in line 38 and insert 'in pursuance'.

No. 51, in line 40, leave out from 'If' to 'under' in line 41 and insert:
'in the case of a person subject to a licence under section 41 of this Act, a court of assize or quarter sessions revokes that licence'.

No. 52, in page 35, line 3, at end insert:
(6) This section shall have effect, in its application to a person sentenced to be detained under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (young offenders convicted of grave crimes) as if for any reference to a prison there were substituted a reference to any place in which the Secretary of State directs that person to be detained.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Clause 61.—(RESTRICTIONS ON GIFTS OF SHOT GUNS.)

Amendment made: No. 54, in page 48, line 37, leave out from 'to' to 'and' in line 41 and insert:
'a fine not exceeding £50'.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Clause 62.—(AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO FIREARMS.)

Amendments made: No. 55, in page 49, line 27, at end insert:
(4) In section 3(1) of the Air Guns and Shot Guns, etc., Act 1962 (penalties for offences under that Act) for the words from 'imprisonment for a term' to 'fine or both)'there shall be substituted the words 'a fine not exceeding £50'.

No. 56, in line 28, leave out from 'the' to end and insert 'said Act of'.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Clause 64.—(FALSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS TENDERED IN EVIDENCE.)

Amendment made: No. 57, in page 49, line 40, leave out Clause 64.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Clause 66.—(DRUNKENNESS IN A PUBLIC PLACE.)

Amendment made: No. 58, in page 50, line 39, after 'behaviour', insert:
'may be arrested without warrant by any person and'.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Clause 75.—(REGULATIONS, RULES AND ORDERS.)

Amendment made: No. 73, in page 58, line 19, leave out 'made under this Act' and insert:
'or rules under this Act, except rules under section 57 of this Act'.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

New Schedule.—(PROVISIONS AS TO PRISON LICENSING BOARD AND LOCAL REVIEW COMMITTEES.)

The Prison Licensing Board

1. The Prison Licensing Board shall include among its members—

(a) a person who holds or has held judicial office;
(b) a registered medical practitioner who is a psychiatrist;
(c) a person appearing to the Secretary of State to have knowledge and experience of the supervision or after-care of discharged prisoners; and
(d) a person appearing to the Secretary of State to have made a study of the causes of delinquency or the treatment of offenders.

2. A person appointed to be a member of the Prison Licensing Board shall hold and vacate office under the terms of the instrument by which he is appointed, but may at any time resign his office; and a person who ceases to


hold office as a member of the Board shall be eligible for reappointment.

3. In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 (bodies of which all members are disqualified under that Act), in its application to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, there shall be inserted (at the appropriate point in alphabetical order) the entry 'The Prison Licensing Board constituted under section (Constitution and functions of Prison Licensing Board and local review committees) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967'.

4. There shall be paid to the members of the Board such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury determine.

5. The expenses of the Board under the last foregoing paragraph and any other expenses incurred by the Board in discharging its functions under section (Constitution and functions of Prison Licensing Board and local review committees) of this Act shall be defrayed by the Secretary of State out of moneys provided by Parliament.

6. The Board shall as soon as practicable after the end of each year make to the Secretary of State a report on the performance of its functions during that year, and the Secretary of State shall lay a copy of each report so made before Parliament.

Local Review Committees

7. The Secretary of State may out of moneys provided by Parliament pay to members of local review committees, and to persons assisting in or concerned with the carrying out of the functions of any such committee travelling or other allowances in accordance with such scales as may be determined by him with the consent of the Treasury, and may out of such moneys defray any other expenses of such committees to such amount as may be so determined.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Brought up, read the First and Second times, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 4.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)

Amendments made: No. 61, in page 106, line 8, leave out 'twenty-seven' and insert 'twenty-eight'.

No. 62, in line 20, leave out 'reduce' and insert 'remit'.

No. 63, in line 21, leave out 'reduction' and insert 'remission'.

No. 64, in line 22, at end insert:
'and in the proviso to the said section 96(4) for the words "reduce or remit the sum" there shall be substituted the words "remit the whole or any part of the sum either".'—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Schedule 5.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Amendments made: No. 65, in page 107, column 3, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert:
'the beginning to "and also

No. 66, in page 108, column 3, line 3, leave out from 'from' to end of line 4 and insert:
every person" where first occurring to "and also

No. 67, in column 3, line 6, leave out 'therein and' and insert 'and also'.

No. 68, in column 3, line 13, leave out from 'words' to 'behaviour' in line 15 and insert:
from "who in any highway" to'.

No. 69, in line 54, at end insert:


1933. c. 12
The Children and Young Persons Act 1933
Section 53(4)

No. 70, in page 109, line 41, at end insert: Section 27.

No. 71, in page 111, line 32, at end insert:


1965. c. 71
The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965.
In section 2 the words 'section 27 of the Prison Act 1952 or' and the words 'the Lord Chief Justice of England or'.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, having been signified—

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Although I may take just a little longer than I did moving some of the Amendments which we have recently been considering, if that is the appropriate word, I promise the House that I shall not take any great length of time.
In commending this Bill to the House on Second Reading on 12th December, which now seems a very long time ago, I explained the three main lines of policy. The first was to streamline our criminal court procedure, so as to enable all those concerned with law enforcement to operate within a less time-wasting framework. The second was to give us a criminal law which is less concerned with observing what I described as the


traditional rules of a stately, but sometimes archaic minuet, and more concerned at arriving at the truth, both for the guilty and the innocent. The third was to modernise our penal system so that it could better perform the triple rôle of deterrence, rehabilitation and reform.
On Second Reading the Bill was given a generous welcome, and since then it has been minutely debated in Committee, and at considerable length last night and tonight on the floor of the House. The result is a Bill which we can, most of us, agree, has been substantially improved. A large number of Amendments have been made, some of them purely drafting or clarificatory, some mainly procedural, but making none the less important points of principle; and others of major significance, of which the new Clause constituting the prison licensing board is the most striking example.
The Government are most grateful for the help given by my hon. Friends, and I should like to say how much we appreciate the generous and non-partisan way in which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), and his right hon. and learned Friends, hon. and learned Friends, right hon. but not learned Friends and hon. but not learned Friends, have all contributed in their various ways to the improvements which we have been able to make in the Bill.
We have been able to make these without departing in any way from the underlying philosophy of the Bill, and I hope that the House will agree that we have observed the undertaking, which I gave on Second Reading, that we would not be unduly rigid in considering proposals for change, from whatever part of the House they may originate. We had some discussion at an earlier stage this evening as to whether free votes were not appropriate, but hon. Members, when they come to study the Division Lists tomorrow, will see that something very near to a free vote on both sides of the House took place on any matter which might have been important or outstanding.
The Bill now goes to another place, and before long I hope that it will be on the Statute Book. I hope and believe that it will be a significant contribution to the reform of our criminal law and that it will make it easier to convict the guilty

while preserving the safeguards which we all regard as essential. I hope, too, that it will help to give us a penal system more closely related to the needs of our society. I should like to thank all those hon. Members, not least my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken on so many detailed points from the Government Front Bench, in Committee and here, for the help that they have given us throughout.

11.20 p.m.

Sir D. Renton: Speaking for myself and, I am sure, for many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I appreciate the open-mindedness which the Home Secretary has shown over many important matters in the Bill, and I acknowledge the hard work which has been done by the Minister of State and the hon. and learned Under-Secretary.
It is a better Bill now, and that can rightly be regarded as being due to the efforts of both sides of the House. I should even like to do something which I do not do very often, and that is pay tribute to a Liberal hon. Member for the great interest which he has shown in the Bill. I refer, of course, to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley).
I hope that I shall not mar the pleasant atmosphere in which we are ending what have been very hard labours if I make this comment. It was not until 30 days after the last day in Commitee that we got the first marshalled list of Government Amendments. I do not complain of that, In view of the vast amount of work which had to be done, with Easter intervening, 30 days was not an excessive time. But we did not get that marshalled list until last Friday morning, and all our Amendments had to be in by 10.30 on Monday evening, which made it rather a rush job. In the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman will perhaps acknowledge that we did not do too badly, but it was a very rush job.
I draw attention to that because the Bill is capable of still further improvement in detail, even if there are disagreements in principle as well, and, in another place, I hope that they will feel completely free to do what we have not had time to do as perfectly as we should have wished.
Having said that, the Bill is something which should, in the main, help the administration of justice greatly to


overcome many difficulties. I am uneasy still about some features of it. I am uneasy, particularly, about the way in which the discretion of the courts is fettered, and I hope that further thought may be given to that. None the less, I am glad that the Bill is now to get its Third Reading.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: There is one aspect of Part V of the Bill which I want to raise at this late stage because it could not be raised earlier, except on Second Reading.
Clause 60 says:
Subject to any exemption having effect by virtue of this section any person who has in his possession or purchases or acquires a shot gun without holding a certificate authorising him to possess shot guns shall be guilty of an offence.
We all know what the purpose of that is, but I suspect that it is not to do something which it might do involuntarily, and I ask the Home Secretary to think about it before the Bill goes to another place.
People who live in the more distant parts of the United Kingdom, such as the West Country, Scotland and Wales, nowadays have no local gun maker. If a shot gun develops a defect, it has to be dispatched to London or Birmingham. As I read the Clause, it would be an offence for anyone in British Railways or British Road Services to be in possession of a shot gun without holding a certificate authorising him to possess it. I am quite sure that that was not the intention when the Clause was drafted, and I shall be happy to be reassured by the right hon. Gentleman that there is some other provision which cancels the implication which I read into the Clause.
It is quite obvious that most of the areas where shot guns are used extensively are remote from the centres of manufacture and repair. This will be a legitimate reason for wanting to pass the possession of the gun temporarily into the hands of somebody who is not a licensed firearms dealer, such as British Railways, or some other carrier. If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to assure me that this point is covered somewhere in the Bill, I should be grateful if, before we give the Bill its Third Reading, he will assure me that he will introduce a

suitable Amendment in another place to deal with this.

11.26 p.m.

Dr. Winstanley: I rise to offer a general welcome to the Bill, and to wish it all possible success in its future stages.
The Home Secretary will recollect that in Committee I frequently found myself voting against the Government. I say "against the Government", rather than "with the Conservatives", because it was not always easy to see who the Conservatives were. In other words, many of the Divisions were on non-party lines. Indeed, from what the right hon. Gentleman said about the vote earlier today, and from what we will see on the Division Lists, it seems that we may have introduced certain habits which may stick.
We on this bench support the Measure. We welcome particularly the right hon. Gentleman's intention to make room in our prisons for the people who really ought to be there, and keep out the people who ought not to be there.
I arrived with this Bill, honourable perhaps, but certainly not learned. I hope that as a result of the great courtesy and help which I have received from right hon. and learned and hon. and learned Members on both sides of the House I have emerged, if not more learned, considerably more knowledgeable.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Hogg: I rise to thank the Home Secretary for the gracious way in which he proposed the Third Reading. I think that it would have been easy for the Opposition to spend a lot more time on the Bill than has been taken, and it would have been easy to defend such a course of action, because almost everything in the Bill is capable of having two opinions about it, but we thought it our duty, after thinking of it very carefully, to give the Bill as fair a wind as possible.
Although on the whole we have had a very full discussion on the Bill, we have tried very much to keep the wind of party controversy out of the discussion, and sometimes we have almost flaunted our internal difficulties to achieve this desirable result. I think on the whole, therefore, the debates on the Bill have been better than they would otherwise have been, and we are grateful for the Home Secretary's acknowledgement of the work which my right hon. and hon.


Friends have put into it. Certainly I could not have done the immense labour of drafting Amendment without the assistance of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I should like to acknowledge my debt to them in every respect.
I should like to endorse what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said about the solitary Liberal representative on our Committee, who was both right-minded and very helpful.
Having said that, everything else that I should like to say about the Bill is out of order, because my doubts about it have been very considerable indeed, and the doubts which I have had are not because of what is in it, but because of what is not. I hope that we shall not be very much older before another and rather more comprehensive and perhaps a little more radical Measure will be before the House, which will possibly divide it even more deeply that the Bill has done. In the meantime, I wish the Bill all success.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will keep a very close eye on some of the more experimental provisions in the Bill. We do not know how they will work. I supported the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon over majority verdicts, and I do not regret it, but there were two strongly held opinions about this. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will keep in touch with the judiciary about how it is working, and will constantly seek reports not only from the Lord Chief Justice, but from other members of the judiciary, high, low, and intermediate, to find out how the various provisions in the Bill are getting along. I hope that he will keep closely in mind the working of Clause 30, about which a private enterprise Division, so to speak, was held a few moments ago. Grave doubts exist about this Clause.
I wish the Bill well. I am grateful to the Home Secretary and his team for their kindness in handling the Measure and I hope that they feel that they have been treated well by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Taverne: I do not rise to deliver a speech in reply but merely, as an anticlimax, to answer a question asked by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who wondered what application these provisions have on shot guns and how they relate to carriers. The answer is that Clause 60(5) applies Section 4 of the Firearms Act, 1937, which exempts carriers from these provisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ZAMBIA (OPENING OF NEW PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS)

Ordered,
That in view of the invitation by the Speaker of the National Assembly of Zambia for a representative of the House of Commons to attend the opening ceremony of the new Parliamentary buildings in Lusaka on Tuesday, 2nd May, 1967, Mr. George Strauss have leave of absence so to attend on behalf of this House.—[Mr. Gordon Walker.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Mr. Robert Maxwell discharged from the Library Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the House of Commons (Services); Mr. Tam Dalyell added.

Mr. James Wellbeloved added to the Accommodation and Housekeeping Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services).—[Mr. McBride.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.